Dear Family & Friends,

So many really important issues for y’all: Tzipi from Manny 2009; POLLARD MAY GET JUSTICE!; NUKES?!; Nitsana Darshan-Leitner suit against PA by terror victims WON!; Everyone says it’s a “really bad deal”; Legal Forum – investigate Schabas; Election stuff; Russia to Iran;

Libya; Nefesh B’Nefesh prize; Dry Bones x 2!! Dig in & learn to act as needed.

Check out our Website: WinstonIsraelInsight.com. See Books/Pollard for more exposé with more to come, I hope.

1.TZIPI LIVNI’S “BIRD” COSTUMES by Emanuel A. Winston February 2009

2.Feds lied for 30 years about Jonathan Pollard

3.PAKISTAN MADE 18 NUKES WITH 6000 LESS POWERFUL CENTRIFUGES

4.Israeli fighter jets stage warning passes against Syrian air force intruders over Golan

5.Historic verdict against PA in lawsuit by terror victims

6.Israel concerned by emerging ‘bad deal’ with Iran

7.From Ahasuerus to Obama by Dr. Reuven Berko

8.What was Herzog thinking? by Dan Margalit

9.Crying ‘wolf’ for a reason by Boaz Bismuth

10.Israel’s deficient response by Isi Leibler

11.US jury finds Palestinian groups liable for terror attacks

12.Why Stop Muslim Immigration by Dr. Peter Hammond

13. Legal Forum: re-examine the status & validity of the international commission of inquiry

14.Why I’m voting Likud by Ruthie Blum

15.Bennett, Yishai trade barbs in battle for religious voters

16.Russia offers Iran advanced anti-aircraft missiles

17.Libya’s Threat to Global Security

18.Nefesh B’Nefesh awarded ‘Jerusalem Prize for Aliyah & Absorption’

19.Dry Bones by Ya’acov Kirschen “Prediction of Things to Come” 2/24/15

This pointy piece by Manny Winston, z’l, is still (or even more) ‘apropos’. Thanks Rachamim!

Received from Rabbi Rachamim Pauli: I found this in my 5769 Sefer Shemos Drasha:

1.TZIPI LIVNI’S “BIRD” COSTUMES by Emanuel A. Winston, Mid East analyst & commentator from February 2009

Israel’s Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni once again displayed her numerous “bird” costumes. (Note: Tzipi is a nickname for Tzippora, which means “bird”.)

First, she flutters her wings as a “dove”. She never was a “hawk”.

Then, in a twinkling she becomes a “tweety bird”, chirping about a “cease-fire” in a righteous war that leaves the Muslim Arab Palestinian Hamas Terrorists fully loaded with long range missiles & no closure of the smuggling tunnels which are enabled by Egypt’s President Hosni Mubarak.

One is reminded of the sophomoric President George W. Bush, looking into Vladimir Putin’s eyes & seeing his “good soul”.

However, when you look into Tzipi Livni’s eyes, all you may see is the back of her skull, with no visible brains to interfere. Livni may be the dumbest Foreign Minister Israel ever had.

Outgoing U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, the malicious friend of the Muslim Arab Palestinian Terrorists, loves Livni because for her it’s no trouble to insert into the vacuum of Livni’s mind, any deal Rice wants.

We all recall the stupid bumbling of Livni agreeing to the Summer 2006 Lebanon War cease-fire UN Resolution 1701, which put Hezb’Allah into the hands of UNIFIL (United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon) & the immediate re-building of Hezb’Allah arms & Terrorist militia, without a peep from the empty-headed Livni.

Instead of learning from her egregious errors, Livni has signed on to the same useless deal to end the Gaza War, UN Resolution 1860, which was prepared by Rice.

Livni is a clear & present danger to the Jewish nation, her soldiers, civilians – even to herself.

Now, if you should look into the eyes of Israel’s Prime Minister Ehud Olmert (resigned due to imminent criminal indictments but, still in power) & Defense Minister Ehud Barak (whose election campaign posters proclaim he isn’t “nice”), you could see twisted wires, short-circuiting their thinking – except for a few remaining connections which are connected to their self-serving drive to survive with the power of their offices.

No sacrifice of others would be too great.

This group of uglies acts as if they were infected by the dreaded Ebola virus that liquefies brains, among other bodily organs.

Finally, Justice for Jonathan may finally arrive!

Please note in our Website: WinstonIsraelInsight.com

Under the ‘Book’ category on the top line of print, click on ‘Pollard’ for a series of in-depth stories about the Pollard ‘Miscarriage of Justice’. I’ll add more articles about Jonathan soon I hope. Gail

2.Feds lied for 30 years about Jonathan Pollard

By Eliot Lauer & Jacques Semmelman – 5 Adar 5775 (Feb. 24, 2015) in WorldNetDaily.com

Israel Resource Review

A recent breakthrough in the case of Jonathan Pollard has shed powerful new light on the injustice of his continued incarceration. Key portions of a critical classified document, on which the government has relied as its justification for keeping Mr. Pollard in prison for nearly 30 years, have now been declassified.

As a result, longstanding government assertions that this specific classified document contains the proof that Mr. Pollard caused unprecedented harm to U.S. national security when he delivered classified information to Israel, have now been exposed as utter falsehoods.

On Nov. 13, 2014, after years of litigation, the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel, or ISCAP, granted our appeal on behalf of our pro bono client, Jonathan Pollard, & ordered the declassification of significant portions of a declaration that had been submitted to the court in 1987 by then-Secretary of Defense Caspar W. Weinberger in connection with Mr. Pollard’s sentencing.

Mr. Pollard had imparted classified information to the state of Israel. He was arrested in 1985. In 1987, Mr. Pollard was sentenced to life in prison, largely on the basis of the Weinberger declaration.

Since then, the government has stridently invoked the Weinberger declaration as its basis to oppose executive clemency or parole for Mr. Pollard. The government has asserted that Mr. Pollard should not be released from prison because the Weinberger declaration establishes that Mr. Pollard caused greater harm to U.S. national security than had ever occurred previously. The government has been able to present this harsh characterization of the Weinberger declaration without fear of contradiction, as no one representing Mr. Pollard has been allowed to see the Weinberger declaration since the day Mr. Pollard was sentenced.

For all these years, virtually the entire Weinberger declaration has been kept under seal by the government under the rubric “classified information.” The government has fought fiercely to prevent the two of us – Mr. Pollard’s security-cleared counsel since 2000 – from seeing any of the classified portions of the Weinberger declaration, even under the strictest security conditions.

The recent disclosures ordered by ISCAP show that the government has been dishonestly hiding behind the mask of “classified information” to materially mischaracterize the nature & extent of the harm caused by Mr. Pollard. The newly disclosed material shows that any harm that may have been caused by Mr. Pollard was in the form of short-term disruption in foreign relations between the United States & certain Arab countries. That is not at all the same thing as harm to U.S. national security. & it was dishonest for the government to pretend that it is.

The government’s deception had its most blatant & prejudicial impact at Mr. Pollard’s parole hearing held in July 2014, during which the government invoked the Weinberger declaration & – without showing it to the parole commission – urged the commission to accept its representation that the document substantiated more harm to the national security of the United States than had ever occurred previously. In its decision denying parole, the commission took the government at its word & essentially parroted the government’s characterization of the Weinberger declaration when it wrote that Mr. Pollard had caused “the greatest compromise of U.S. security to that date.”

That is an outright falsehood, & the recent revelations prove it.

The newly disclosed portions reveal the substance of the Weinberger declaration, which is devoted to the possible effect of Mr. Pollard’s actions on U.S. relations with Arab countries.

Thus, it is now revealed that Mr. Pollard provided Israel with information concerning the “political-economic affairs of Middle Eastern nations,” various “Middle Eastern orders of battle,” & the “technology of Soviet weapons & radar systems” used by various Arab governments. The potential consequence to the United States of Mr. Pollard’s conduct is described by Mr. Weinberger as “a high probability of harm to the foreign relations of the U.S. with friendly Arab nations.”

While the phrase “damage to the national security” is used as a section heading, what appears below it is, once again, in the nature of potential impact on foreign relations. For example, Mr. Weinberger bemoans the fact that Mr. Pollard provided information that enabled Israel to conduct a “successful strike on PLO headquarters in Tunisia” while “avoiding contact with Libyan Air Forces.”

In the same section, Mr. Weinberger decries the fact that Mr. Pollard “provided information on Soviet built air-to-air missile systems & Middle East air orders of battle,” even while acknowledging that “[s]ince Israel depends for its national security on control of Middle East air space, much of this information was considered vital, and, as Col. Sella [of the Israeli Air Force] remarked, was not previously possessed by Israel.”

At Mr. Pollard’s sentencing, the government submitted a Victim Impact Statement, or VIS, the instrument designed by law specifically to allow the victim of a crime – in this case the government itself – to describe to the sentencing judge the full harm suffered.

The VIS says nothing about harm to U.S. national security. The VIS focuses on relations with Middle Eastern countries, & on the lack of a quid pro quo for information the United States would have preferred to barter with Israel:

“Mr. Pollard’s unauthorized disclosures have threatened the U.S. [sic] relations with numerous Middle East Arab allies, many of whom question the extent to which Mr. Pollard’s disclosures of classified information have skewed the balance of power in the Middle East. Moreover, because Mr. Pollard provided the Israelis virtually any classified document requested by Mr. Pollard’s coconspirators, the U.S. has been deprived of the quid pro quo routinely received during authorized & official intelligence exchanges with Israel, & Israel has received information classified at a level far in excess of that ever contemplated by the National Security Council. The obvious result of Mr. Pollard’s largesse is that U.S. bargaining leverage with the Israeli government in any further intelligence exchanges has been undermined. In short, Mr. Pollard’s activities have adversely affected U.S. relations with both its Middle East Arab allies & the government of Israel. (Emphasis added.)

The VIS thus reflects friction between the United States & “Middle East Arab allies,” & temporary reduction in bargaining leverage by the United States. It says nothing at all about harm to U.S. national security, & certainly does not allege, in words or in substance, that this was the greatest compromise of U.S. national security up to that time.

Those who have opposed relief for Mr. Pollard have asserted that the VIS merely describes what could be shared with the public, & that grave damage to U.S. national security is documented in the secret Weinberger declaration. This has now been proven false. The Weinberger declaration is merely a more detailed version of the VIS.

The new revelations also dovetail closely with the disclosures in another recently declassified document, a 1987 CIA study of the Pollard case. The CIA study concludes that Mr. Pollard supplied Israel with information regarding Arab & Pakistani nuclear intelligence, Arab military capability & weaponry (including biological & chemical weapons), Soviet advisers in Syria & Soviet training of Syrian personnel, the PLO’s Force 17, & a radio signal notation manual requested by Israel to help in the decryption of intercepted communications of Soviet military advisers in Damascus.

Tellingly, the CIA study specifically states that Israel never requested information from Mr. Pollard concerning “U.S. military activities, plans, capabilities, or equipment.” Thus, both recently disclosed government documents, as well as the VIS, point to the same conclusion: Mr. Pollard’s activities may have ruffled some feathers in the Middle East, but there was no material impact on U.S. national security.

The government’s unconscionable deception has deprived Mr. Pollard of his freedom for too many years. The document brandished by the government to implement its scheme, hidden from scrutiny until now, has finally been exposed for what it is: a description of a brief, long-forgotten blip in foreign relations, not a frightening exposition of unprecedented harm to U.S. national security.

After nearly three decades, in light of the government’s perfidy, the only conceivable way to provide a belated measure of justice is to end Mr. Pollard’s incarceration immediately. President Obama has the solemn duty to uphold the law of the land by finally putting a stop to this ongoing travesty. There are no more excuses. The president should exercise his constitutional power & grant clemency to Jonathan Pollard.

Eliot Lauer & Jacques Semmelman, litigation partners at Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP, have been Jonathan Pollard’s pro bono attorneys since 2000. Lauer has 41 years of experience as a civil & criminal litigator. Semmelman has 31 years of experience, & was formerly a federal prosecutor in New York.
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2015/02/feds-lied-for-30-years-about-jonathan-pollard/#UI3G5O4Ey5LsUffx.99

Also from Rabbi Rachamim Pauli: GAIL an update for you

This was hinted upon by Israeli TV last night but hushed up: http://debka.com/article/24421/Israeli-fighter-jets-stage-warning-passes-against-Syrian-air-force-intruders-over-Golan-Air-tension-high-

LET ME REMIND EVERYBODY THAT PAKISTAN MADE 18 NUCLEAR BOMBS WITH 6000 LESS POWERFUL CENTRIFUGES & KERRY & OBAMA WANT TO GIVE IRAN 6500 WITH A GROWTH POSSIBILITY TO 10,000. THESE FOLKS ARE MORE OBSESSED WITH A NOBLE PEACE PRIZE THAN TRUE PEACE & THEY DO NOT CARE HOW MANY MILLIONS WILL BE NUKED TO DEATH IN AN IRANIAN JIHAD.

4.Israeli fighter jets stage warning passes against Syrian air force intruders over Golan. Air tension high DEBKAfile Exclusive Report February 24, 2015, 9:30 AM (IDT)

Syrian barrel bombs dropped on Quneitra

Israeli fighter jets flew passes over the Golan Monday, Feb. 23 as a warning to Syrian helicopters & fighter planes to stop encroaching on the no-fly zone, in violation of standing Israeli-Syrian armistice agreements. This is reported by DEBKAfile’s military sources.
The Syrian warplanes planes came over Quneitra Monday to drop barrel bombs on Syrian rebel forces holding the town. Spotters on Israeli Golan counted at least 30 bombs dropped by helicopters under cover of Syrian air force jets. Their crews took no notice of the Israeli fighter jets & drones present at the time & continued their attacks regardless.
At the end of the Syrian operation, Israeli aircraft conducted its warning passes over the Golan town.

Our sources report that this was the second day in a row that the Syrian air force had bombed the same sector. Sunday, they struck rebel positions in the Tel Al-Harra area 6-8 km from the Israeli Golan border. Israel’s inaction then encouraged Damascus to move its warplanes closer to the border the next day & fly into the no-fly zone.

This time, Israeli avoided a direct clash, but broadcast a warning that a confrontation was possible if the Syrians returned for a repeat. Western & Middle East military sources interpret the Israeli flights over Quneitra Monday as a clear warning to Damascus that Israel will not tolerate Syrian air raids close to its Golan lines or any incursions in airspace banned by their armistice agreements.

Six months ago, on Sept. 23, an Israeli Patriot air defense battery downed a Syrian Sukhoi-24 which ventured into its air space. The plane crashed just inside the Syrian border. The IDF claimed at the time that the Syrian plane had strayed across the border by mistake – & so the incident ended. However, Israeli commanders were certain that there was no mistake & that the Syrians were testing the alertness of Israel’s air defenses & gauging its readiness to deploy its air might for challenging aerial incursions.

5.Historic verdict against PA in lawsuit by terror victims by Itamar Marcus & Nan Jacques Zilberdik

http://www.palwatch.org/main.aspx?fi=157&doc_id=14100

Palestinian Media Watch welcomes yesterday’s verdict in the lawsuit by 10 American families who are all victims or related to victims of Palestinian terror. PMW played an important role in the case, working with the lawyers of Arnold & Porter (US-based) & Shurat Hadin (Israel-based) for two years preparing the lawsuit for trial.
The families sued the Palestinian Authority for damages, saying that the PA was responsible for the terror attacks in which they were personally injured or their relatives were killed. Yesterday, the US court ruled that the PA is financially liable for $655 million in damages for involvement in those terror attacks.
PMW submitted two expert opinions to the court as well as hundreds of certified translations & PA TV videos showing PA promotion of terror from 2000 – 2004 (the period relevant for this trial).
In addition, PMW provided documentation of the PA’s support for terror & acceptance of responsibility after the terror attacks. PMW showed that the PA celebrates terror attacks & rewards terrorists with high salaries & other benefits, including some of the terrorists involved in the specific terror attacks of this lawsuit.
PMW also supplied material documenting that the PA to this day continues to pay salaries to all terrorist prisoners, including terrorist prisoners involved in the terror attacks connected to the trial. The lead trial lawyer, Kent Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter, said: “The PA & PLO policies of financial inducements & rewards for terrorism that are at the center of this case unfortunately continue today, more than a decade later.” [Jerusalem Post, Feb. 24, 2015]

Yalowitz also focused on the ethical side of the victory:

“I am truly privileged to have had the opportunity to represent these amazing families & join them in their quest for justice against those who have devastated their lives forever.” [Jerusalem Post, Feb. 24, 2015]

Reported progress in nuclear talks between world powers & Iran sparks worries in Jerusalem • Source close to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu: Congress could be last barrier to stop a bad deal, timing of PM’s trip to Washington is critical.

Eli Leon, Shlomo Cesana, Israel Hayom Staff & News Agencies

| Inside the Isfahan nuclear facility Photo credit: AP

Israeli government officials in Jerusalem are not hiding their concerns about the progress in the ongoing nuclear talks between Iran & world powers, particularly in light of The Associated Press report on Monday that exposed the details of the emerging agreement.

According to the AP report, the deal would clamp down on Iran’s nuclear activities for at least 10 years but then slowly ease restrictions on programs that could be used to make nuclear weapons.

“We made progress,” U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry said Monday as he bade farewell in Geneva to members of the American delegation at the table with Iran. More discussions between Iran & the P5+1 nations were set for next Monday, a senior U.S. official said.

Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said the sides found “a better understanding” at the negotiating table.

The deadline for a framework agreement is March 31.

Western officials familiar with the talks cited movement but also described the discussions as a moving target, meaning changes in any one area would have repercussions for other parts of the negotiation.

The core idea would be to reward Iran for good behavior over the last years of any agreement, gradually lifting constraints on its uranium enrichment & slowly easing economic sanctions.

The U.S. initially sought restrictions lasting up to 20 years; Iran has pushed for less than a decade. The prospective deal appears to be somewhere in the middle.

One variation being discussed would place at least a 10-year regime of strict controls on Iran’s uranium enrichment. If Iran complied, the restrictions would be gradually lifted over the final five years.

One issue critics are certain to focus on: Once the deal expires, Iran could theoretically ramp up enrichment to whatever level it wanted.

Experts say Iran already could produce the equivalent of one weapon’s worth of enriched uranium with its present operating 10,000 centrifuges. Several officials spoke of 6,500 centrifuges as a potential point of compromise, with the U.S. trying to restrict them to Iran’s mainstay IR-1 model instead of more advanced machines.

However, Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, said last year that his country needed to increase its output equivalent to at least 190,000 of its present-day centrifuges.

Under a possible agreement, Iran also would be forced to ship out most of the enriched uranium it produced or change it to a form that would be difficult to convert for weapons use. It takes about one ton of low-enriched uranium to process into a nuclear weapon, & officials said that Iran could be restricted to an enriched stockpile of no more than about 700 pounds.

The U.N.’s International Atomic Energy Agency would have responsibility for monitoring, & any deal would depend on technical safeguards rather than Iranian guarantees.

The IAEA already is monitoring Iranian compliance with an interim agreement that came into force a year ago. Separately, it also oversees Iran’s nuclear programs to ensure they remain peaceful.

For the U.S., the goal is to extend to at least a year the period that Iran would need to surreptitiously “break out” toward nuclear weapons development.

The AP report makes no mention of the Fordo underground nuclear facility or the Arak heavy-water reactor.

Israeli officials reacted with alarm to the AP report. Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said, “The agreement with Iran, as it is being formulated now, is a great danger to the peace of the Western world & threatens Israel’s security. This bad emerging deal would enable Iran to free itself from the economic siege & continue to enrich uranium as well. We will not compromise the security of Israel’s citizens. We will do everything we can & voice on every stage the expected dangers, as [Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu] will do next week in an important speech to Congress.”

International Relations, Intelligence & Strategic Affairs Minister Yuval Steinitz called the reports of the emerging agreement “worrying,” saying such a deal would allow Iran to become a “nuclear threshold state.”

“We hope world powers refrain from signing such a deal,” Steinitz said.

Economy & Trade Minister Naftali Bennett said, “These are decisive days in the history of the free world. When there is a nuclear attack in the U.S. or Europe in five to ten years, the world will look back at these days as the fateful time when it could have been thwarted. A few years ago, we had the ‘Arab Spring.’ Now, we have the ‘Nuclear Spring.’ If Iran gets nuclear weapons, there will be a nuclear arms race in the entire region — Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Egypt & other countries. But it’s not too late. I call for all means necessary to be used to prevent a nuclear Iran.”

A source close to Netanyahu said Monday night, “Indeed, we believed the deal would go in the direction of a bad deal that endangers not only Israel, but also the entire region & the world. Congress could be the last barrier to stop a bad deal. This clarifies the need for the prime minister’s trip to Washington at the start of next week to address Congress. The timing of the trip is critical, as there appears to be an attempt to reach a framework agreement between world powers & Iran by the end of March.”

Meanwhile, The Guardian & Al Jazeera published a purported secret cable on Monday that they claimed indicated a gap in the positions of Netanyahu & the Mossad regarding the Iranian nuclear program.

According to the report, the October 2012 cable quoted the Mossad as saying, “Even though Iran has accumulated enough 5 percent enriched uranium for several bombs, & has enriched some of it to 20 percent, it does not appear to be ready to enrich it to higher levels.

“Bottom line: though Iran at this stage is not performing the activity necessary to produce weapons, it is working to close gaps in areas that appear legitimate such as enrichment, reactors, which will reduce the time required to produce weapons from the time the instruction is actually given.”

The news organizations said the document was a Mossad assessment shared with South African intelligence, part of a trove of leaked spy cables sent by several different intelligence agencies, including the CIA & Russian intelligence.

In September 2012, during a speech at the U.N., Netanyahu held up a cartoon drawing of a bomb & said Iran was moving ahead with plans that would allow it to potentially build a nuclear bomb within a year or so. The diagram showed escalating levels of uranium enrichment & Netanyahu pulled out a red marker & drew a line across what he said was a threshold which Israel could not tolerate — uranium enrichment to 90 percent, the level needed to make an atomic bomb.

“By next spring, at most by next summer at current enrichment rates, they will have finished the medium enrichment & move on to the final stage,” Netanyahu said. “From there, it’s only a few months, possibly a few weeks before they get enough enriched uranium for the first bomb.”

He said his assessment was not based on “military intelligence,” but on publicly available U.N. reports.

An Israeli official said on Monday there was “no discrepancy” between Netanyahu’s assessment & the unverified document, noting that the supposed Mossad quotes indicated Iran was ‘working to close gaps in areas that appear legitimate such as enrichment, reactors, which will reduce the time required to produce weapons from the time the instruction is actually given.'”

“This was exactly the prime minister’s point in his address to the U.N. in 2012,” the official said.

7.From Ahasuerus to Obama  by Dr. Reuven Berko

Few dare break the silence of the masses to point out flaws or potential dangers regarding security, politics or diplomacy. Those who do choose to cast light on a looming danger or a faulty procedure face harsh backlash from those who do not like their “new Middle East” vision distorted — though it is now gone anyway.

Yet the messenger is compelled to deliver the notice & feels it in his bones. Even if he runs away & his boat is consumed by a whale, the leviathan will spit him out on the beach so that he can fulfill his mission. There is also the inherent danger of presenting the message itself, as the recipients may choose to kill the messenger & cast stones against those coming with ill omens.

This is why in many cases the weaker visionaries opt to avoid confrontation & spare themselves the ire of the public, which ignores their message as matter of habit. Conversely if the visionary makes a prediction that does not come true — he will be disgraced. There are a few cases where the people, like in the biblical story of Nineveh, heeded a prophet’s warning & repented, & were spared certain doom. For these reasons, it is unlikely the Iranians will turn back now & stow their ambitions to develop nuclear weapons after investing so much into the program — massive subterranean compounds inside mountains, intercontinental missiles, spy & navigation satellites & the countless number of scientists who contributed to the project, a few of whom were killed by hidden hands.

The public pressure on Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu not to address the U.S. Congress & issue a warning about the nuclear holocaust the Iranians are planning is a clear example of trying to shoot the messenger. After all, it was Netanyahu who warned the world about global terrorism & said it could be fought & defeated. Now he is warning the world about a nuclear Iran, & again no one wants to listen.

Now, on the eve of Purim, Israel’s prime minister comes with an apocalyptic warning to the Americans & the world of the Iranian threat, but many are trying to bind his hands & turn him away from his mission. Instead, the prime minister faces an assault of disparaging accusations regarding his wife, home, & family. His opponents make ridiculous accusations about hidden motives in the speech & other detractors accuse Netanyahu of hurting diplomacy & engaging in electoral populism. Do Netanyahu’s considerations lack the wisdom of his opponents?

Those who, like in the book of Amos, tell the Israeli prime minister to go away as they do not want to hear his bad news, did the same thing when he warned of Palestinian terrorism. Their slander continued when they said he “pushed himself into” representing the Jewish people after massacre in Paris. Just before we read the book of Esther on Purim, Netanyahu will speak before Congress, & we should remember that just as evil Haman wanted to destroy all the Jews, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei is seeking an atomic weapon to destroy Israel.

& just like Ahasuerus was blind to Mordecai’s warnings, & the plan to weaken & destroy him, today President Barack Obama refuses to listen to the words of the Jewish emissary. But like Mordecai, Netanyahu’s message is bigger than him & populist considerations. The message will be conveyed, & it will leave its mark. That is one’s historic duty to their people.

8.What was Herzog thinking?  by Dan Margalit

Several senior government officials, who would like to see Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu speak to the U.S. Congress, have an explanation for the current state of affairs: Netanyahu & U.S. President Barack Obama are so far apart that a thaw in their relations seems beyond the realm of possibly. The Israeli leader believes the administration no longer views the ayatollahs as a threat to world peace, & therefore, even if he were to forgo the speech to Congress — effectively capitulating to the White House’s demands — he will have gained almost zero brownie points among Obama’s people.

Everything else remains to be seen. Netanyahu hopes both sides maintain their security cooperation, which has been described as excellent. He hopes Washington continues to have Israel’s back on the world stage. But he must realize that things could take a turn for the worse. Then what? Netanyahu supporters hope all will be forgotten by the time the presidential election cycle shifts into high gear, around November 2015. Perhaps, or perhaps not.

The emerging nuclear deal between Iran & the U.S. is bad for Israel & bad for the West. It may warrant an unrelenting effort to torpedo it. That is why I am baffled by what Labor Party Chairman Isaac Herzog told The Washington Post the other day. He said he had trust in Obama when it came to Iran, saying Obama’s handling of the nuclear talks proved he knew what he was doing. Herzog is wrong, big time. Even if Iran were to cease being an existential threat to Israel, it would still be a regional-strategic menace of the highest order because of the violence it is perpetrating all over.

Obama is not trying to prevent Iran’s nuclearization, he is trying to work out some interim agreement. At most, he is willing to buy some time, hoping that one day Iran will change its aggressive behavior. “The Iranian regime is the problem, not the answer,” Defense Minister Moshe Ya’alon said on Monday, taking a swipe at Obama for letting the ayatollahs keep some 6,500 centrifuges intact.

Can Washington & Jerusalem do something to get over their rough patch? Obama & Netanyahu may have crossed the point of no return. Their strained relations mean they will have to hunker down in their positions. But ironically, Iran has created room for optimism by focusing on the technicalities of the agreement.

Iran would like to finalize all the outstanding provisions right now.

The U.S. wants to pen a framework agreement now & a comprehensive deal in late June.

This bone of contention is why White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday that there was only a 50 percent chance for a deal.

This statement may help cheer up the delegates in the American Israel Public Affairs Committee Policy Conference, the crown jewel of the American Jewish experience, at least in the public sphere. But will we actually see happy campers there? I believe the probability lies well below 50 percent.

9.Crying ‘wolf’ for a reason  by Boaz Bismuth

Well, it appears Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu hasn’t merely been crying “wolf, wolf” for no reason these past few years. The nuclear deal between Iran & the Western powers is closer than ever, & according to reports from Geneva on Monday following the Kerry-Zarif meeting, it looks as if the Americans have demonstrated quite a bit of flexibility at the negotiating table with the Iranians, who will keep 6,500 (!) centrifuges.

It has already been said that during the Obama era it is better to be an enemy of America, & apparently even more preferable to be an enemy who is also an ayatollah.

We apologize for being wrong: This isn’t going to be a bad deal; it’s going to be terrible. Why are readers of Israel Hayom not surprised? Because we were perhaps the only Israeli media outlet that spoke the truth the entire time, while others preferred to turn Iran into a political flashpoint & the U.S. president into someone trustworthy. They called Netanyahu a meddlesome pest, spoiling the Obama-produced Iran festivities. They said Israel Hayom was exaggerating with its Iran-related headlines; that we are simply drudging up f-e-a-r. What can be said then when reality proves that a wonderful deal for Iran is indeed on the table.

The Obama administration sees our disheveled Middle East a little differently than officials in Jerusalem: Where the prime minister of Israel sees an adversary (Iran), the Americans see a potential ally. In Jerusalem, Iran is the criminal; in Washington, Iran is the new sheriff in the Middle East who will instill order (like it did in Yemen?). Obama is prepared to ask the Persian cat to watch over the cream. Iran? Are we on candid camera?

So many questions still remain open: What will happen to the heavy water reactor at Arak, & what about the nuclear facility at Fordo? & will the International Atomic Energy Agency increase the number of its observers to account for the number of centrifuges staying in Iranian hands?

It can be assumed that on these issues, too, we will see some American dexterity, because Washington wants a deal just as much as Iran. Obama needs a legacy; Iran is seeking to become a nuclear threshold state. Both sides will get what they desire at a different time.

Henry Kissinger was indeed correct in saying that what began as an attempt to dismantle Iran’s nuclear program, is ending with acceptance of that same program. Throughout history, the Persians have been blessed with the virtue of patience.

& patience pays off: In 2009, Obama arrived on the scene & renewed nuclear talks (which began in 2003 but had stalled). Which is why the diplomatic efforts to halt Iran’s nuclear program remind us of the old Persian idiom: “He tried to pluck an eyebrow, but blinded an eye.”

10.Israel’s deficient response  by Isi Leibler

Successive Israeli governments have failed miserably to meet the challenge of global anti-Semitism, not providing the leadership demanded of a Jewish state in these turbulent times & leaving Diaspora Jews to their own devices.

The global anti-Semitic tsunami, an unprecedented surge of feral hostility compounded by the Internet, emanates from a combination of factors: rabid Muslim anti-Semitism & violence, demonical anti-Israelism of the Left, & traditional cultural & radical Jew-hatred of the Right. It has impacted on Jewish communities everywhere but ironically is most acute in Europe, the continent drenched with Jewish blood during the Holocaust. It gathered enormous momentum during the recent military confrontation with Hamas, climaxing in France.

The responses by European Jewish leaders differ in various countries. Overall, the French have responded courageously. In contrast, others have behaved like “trembling Israelites,” some remaining in denial & continuing to understate the problem. By & large, Jews in Europe are under great stress & many are despondent about their future.

The situation in South America & South Africa has increasingly deteriorated. Even Canada & Australia, whose governments are strongly supportive of Israel, have witnessed an upsurge in anti-Semitism

In the United States, the goldene medina, despite the strong public & congressional support for Israel, many Jews are stunned by the anti-Israeli hysteria generated by the Left & some liberal media & shocked by the toxic levels of anti-Semitism displayed on many college campuses.

It is estimated that well over $100 million is invested in various overlapping agencies purporting to combat anti-Semitism. Some play a constructive role but others are useless & sometimes even counterproductive.

Yet, despite this, American Jewry’s graying establishment leadership is on the defensive & has become less strident.

The caustic & frequently hostile anti-Israeli remarks expressed by President Barack Obama were met with deafening silence — uncharacteristic of the traditionally feisty leaders. The reluctance, despite grass-roots outrage, of leading Jewish organizations — including the Anti-Defamation League — to publicly protest the New York Metropolitan Opera’s performance of the anti-Semitic opera “The Death of Klinghoffer” also exemplifies this trend.

Overall, Diaspora Jews are under enormous stress, confused & frequently divided as how to respond to the upsurge of anti-Israeli & anti-Semitic onslaughts.

The global Jewish bodies purporting to combat these vicious trends all have limitations & have proven unable to provide the necessary direction on a global basis. The rejuvenated World Jewish Congress, headed by Ronald Lauder, has been a positive force, especially over the past year, among Jewish communities in Europe & especially in Latin America. Its inherent weakness is the absence of endorsement by the major American Jewish organizations, without which it cannot purport to represent world Jewry.

The Jewish Agency is headed by the charismatic Natan Sharansky, who possesses a full intellectual grasp of the problem.

Unfortunately, he appears to have been diverted, channeling most of his energies toward fundraising, the bureaucratic management of an old & ailing organization, & concentrating primarily on non-contentious issues such as promoting Jewish identity. His absence of leadership was especially notable following the recent tragic events in France when he actually distanced the Jewish Agency from Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s call on French Jews to consider aliyah. Alas, today the Jewish Agency is no longer regarded as a major force in leading & coordinating with Diaspora Jews.

The World Zionist Organization, once a major body with active constituents throughout the world, is today utterly moribund, & has negligible impact as evidenced by its hibernation during the recent anti-Semitic upheavals in France.

A few weeks ago, the WZO suddenly emerged from its slumber with a childish questionnaire to constituents inquiring whether they felt that anti-Semitism was growing. Incredibly, it was accompanied by a primitive video seeking to depict Belgian anti-Semitism. It highlighted a Rabbi Menachem Margolin of the Association of European Jews (not to be confused with the European Jewish Congress) who the previous week had castigated Netanyahu for his “Pavlovian calls for aliyah after every terror attack.”

Former WZO leaders must be turning in their graves at the degeneration of this formerly respected body. Chairman Avraham Duvdevani should consider officially dissolving the organization which disgraces its remaining constituents in the U.K., Australia & South Africa who continue to be engaged in important Zionist activity.

Over a decade ago, Israel’s Foreign Affairs Ministry, in conjunction with the Diaspora Affairs Ministry, created the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism. It was enthusiastically supported & endorsed by major Jewish communal organizations & activists throughout the world. Sadly, due to lack of funding & personnel, it was unable to create a meaningful secretariat to maintain operations between the intermittent international conferences & therefore failed to provide the vital ongoing leadership & framework for consultation for which it was created.

Ironically, despite the explosion of anti-Semitism, aside from a parliamentary offshoot, this organization is dormant. Its last conference was in 2013, with a follow-up meeting of 20 representatives held in February last year that was a nonevent.

However, only recently, in a letter signed by Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman & Diaspora Affairs Minister Naftali Bennett, the Global Forum invited Diaspora Jewish leaders & activists to participate in the fifth conference, scheduled for May 2015. That ministers, whose sole contribution to the organization comprised an opening statement to conferences, could launch a meeting scheduled for a date when they may no longer be in office, highlights how politicians with a penchant for exploiting platforms to aggrandize their political status have hijacked this area.

It is now crucial to create an umbrella organization to serve as an ongoing forum to exchange views, provide direction, & determine & coordinate global strategies against anti-Semitism.

Only a prime minister has the status to launch a global body to encompass organizations, recruit the best activists & convince the often egotistical leaders of communities & competing Jewish organizations & agencies to set aside their parochial interests & merge their efforts to face the increasing threat.

The head of such a bureau should be a civil servant with a thorough understanding of the field & the ability to work & coordinate with Jewish agencies & the varied Diaspora leaders & activists engaged in this area. Staff members must not be connected to domestic politics. Aside from academics, there are a number of talented former ambassadors currently engaged in bureaucratic desk jobs who have the expertise to play a major role in such a body. There are of course also many talented & passionate Jews here & in the Diaspora who would be willing to engage on a voluntary basis in such a venture.

To function effectively, it will require substantial funding. But this project should not merely be perceived as a support for Diaspora Jewry. Israel itself has a major vested interest in creating such a global consultative body. We are currently being overwhelmed in the war of ideas & it is incumbent upon us to identify the anti-Semitic elements in the campaigns that seek to demonize us.

As severe as it is, anti-Israelism & anti-Semitism in Europe & most countries is more rampant at the grass-roots level than is currently reflected in government policies. Should we fail to reverse the tide, governments pressured by their Muslim communities & other constituents increasingly radicalized against Israel will inevitably lead to a further downgrading of relations with Israel.

At the very least, the existence of such a global body will enable us to hold our heads high & expose those opposing us as bigots & racists. It will also ensure that young Jews in the Diaspora, enveloped in a viciously hostile environment that is constantly saturated with media distortions, are not brainwashed into condoning the hatred directed against them.

Irrespective of whether Netanyahu or Herzog is elected, the new prime minister must consider the establishment of such a bureau as of the highest priority, in terms of both our national interest & the obligatory role of the Jewish state on behalf of the Jewish people.

Isi Leibler’s website can be viewed at www.wordfromjerusalem.com. He may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com.

11.US jury finds Palestinian groups liable for terror attacks

Manhattan federal court holds PLO, PA responsible for terrorist attacks in Israel during Second Intifada • 10 American families awarded $218.5 million in damages, a sum that is automatically tripled to $655.5 million under 1992 U.S. anti-terrorism law.

Yoni Hersch, Israel Hayom Staff & News Wires

A U.S. jury on Monday found the Palestine Liberation Organization & the Palestinian Authority liable for supporting terrorist attacks in Israel during the Second Intifada more than a decade ago that killed dozens of people.

Jurors in Manhattan federal court awarded $218.5 million in damages to 10 American families who brought the case, a sum that is automatically tripled to $655.5 million under a 1992 U.S. anti-terrorism law, lawyers for the families said.

Both defendants said they would appeal. It is unclear whether the plaintiffs can ever collect, though their lawyers vowed to seek out Palestinian assets to satisfy the judgment.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers called the jury’s decision a win in the fight against terrorism.

aftermath of a bus bombing during the Second IntifadaRPhoto credit: A credit: AP

AAA BBURNof a bus bombing during the Second Intifada

|A city bus

“It’s about accountability,” attorney Kent Yalowitz said. “It’s about justice.”

The verdict was the second in less than a year in which a U.S. jury found defendants liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act, which lets U.S. citizens injured by acts of international terrorism pursue damages in federal court.

Last September, a federal jury in Brooklyn found Arab Bank Plc liable for providing material support to Hamas. A separate trial to determine damages is scheduled for this year.

The verdicts could bolster efforts by American victims to hold foreign entities responsible in U.S. courts for overseas attacks.

A 12-member jury on Monday found the PLO & the Palestinian Authority liable over six shootings & bombings between 2002 & 2004 in the Jerusalem area & which have been attributed to the al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigades & Hamas. The attacks killed 33 people, including several U.S. citizens, & injured more than 450.

“Now the PLO & the PA know there is a price for supporting terrorism,” said attorney Nitsana Darshan-Leitner of Shurat Hadin Israel Law Center.

The PLO & the Palestinian Authority have faced similar lawsuits in the past but this was by far the largest judgment entered against the defendants.

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said the decision “determines the responsibility of the Palestinian Authority for the murderous terrorist attacks of the previous decade.

“Instead of drawing the requisite lesson, the Palestinian Authority is advancing steps that endanger regional stability such as the hypocritical application to the International Criminal Court even as it is allied with the Hamas terrorist organization. We expect the responsible elements in the international community to continue to punish those who support terrorism just as the U.S. federal court has done & to back the countries that are fighting terrorism.

“Today as well we remember the families that lost their loved ones; our heart is with them & there is no justice that can console them.”

Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman called the decision “a moral victory for Israel & victims of terrorism.”

The plaintiffs had requested more than $350 million of damages, or more than $1 billion after tripling.

They provided evidence that late PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat & his agents routinely arranged for attackers to be paid, kept them on Palestinian payrolls & made payments to families of attackers who died.

Jurors, who deliberated for less than two days, heard dramatic testimony from relatives of people killed & survivors who never fully recovered. One, Rena Sokolow, described how a family vacation to Israel in 2002 turned to tragedy with a bomb blast outside a Jerusalem shoe store.

The Long Island woman testified that blood flowed so quickly from a broken leg she thought she would die.

DEFEAT THE THIRD JIHAD For the third time in history, orthodox Muslims are making a serious bid for world dominance.

12.Why Stop Muslim Immigration by Dr. Peter Hammond THUR. NOV. 27, 2014

The following is adapted from Dr. Peter Hammond’s book: Slavery, Terrorism & Islam: Historical Roots & Contemporary Threat.
When politically correct, tolerant, & culturally diverse societies agree to Muslim demands for their religious privileges, some of the other components tend to creep in as well. Here’s how it works. As long as the Muslim population remains around or under 2% in any given country, they will be for the most part be regarded as a peace-loving minority, & not as a threat to other citizens. This is the case in:
United States — Muslim 0.6%

Australia — Muslim 1.5%
Canada — Muslim 1.9%
China — Muslim 1.8%
Italy — Muslim 1.5%
Norway — Muslim 1.8%
At 2% to 5%, they begin to proselytize from other ethnic minorities & disaffected groups, often with major recruiting from the jails & among street gangs. This is happening in:
Denmark — Muslim 2%
Germany — Muslim 3.7%
United Kingdom — Muslim 2.7%
Spain — Muslim 4%
Thailand — Muslim 4.6%
From 5% on, they exercise an inordinate influence in proportion to their percentage of the population. For example, they will push for the introduction of halal (clean by Islamic standards) food, thereby securing food preparation jobs for Muslims. They will increase pressure on supermarket chains to feature halal on their shelves — along with threats for failure to comply. This is occurring in:
France — Muslim 8%
Philippines — Muslim 5%
Sweden — Muslim 5%
Switzerland — Muslim 4.3%
The Netherlands — Muslim 5.5%
Trinidad & Tobago — Muslim 5.8%
At this point, they will work to get the ruling government to allow them to rule themselves (within their ghettos) under Sharia, the Islamic Law. The ultimate goal of Islamists is to establish Sharia law over the entire world.
When Muslims approach 10% of the population, they tend to increase lawlessness as a means of complaint about their conditions. In Paris , we are already seeing car-burnings. Any non-Muslim action offends Islam, & results in uprisings & threats, such as in Amsterdam , with opposition to Mohammed cartoons & films about Islam. Such tensions are seen daily, particularly in Muslim sections, in:
Guyana — Muslim 10%
India — Muslim 13.4%
Israel — Muslim 16%
Kenya — Muslim 10%
Russia — Muslim 15%
After reaching 20%, nations can expect hair-trigger rioting, jihad militia formations, sporadic killings, & the burnings of Christian churches & Jewish synagogues, such as in:
Ethiopia — Muslim 32.8%
At 40%, nations experience widespread massacres, chronic terror attacks, & ongoing militia warfare, such as in:
Bosnia — Muslim 40%
Chad — Muslim 53.1%
Lebanon — Muslim 59.7%
From 60%, nations experience unfettered persecution of non-believers of all other religions (including non-conforming Muslims), sporadic ethnic cleansing (genocide), use of Sharia Law as a weapon, & Jizya, the tax placed on infidels, such as in:
Albania — Muslim 70%
Malaysia — Muslim 60.4%
Qatar — Muslim 77.5%
Sudan — Muslim 70%
After 80%, expect daily intimidation & violent jihad, some State-run ethnic cleansing, & even some genocide, as these nations drive out the infidels, & move toward 100% Muslim, such as has been experienced & in some ways is on-going in:
Bangladesh — Muslim 83%
Egypt — Muslim 90%
Gaza — Muslim 98.7%
Indonesia — Muslim 86.1%
Iran — Muslim 98%
Iraq — Muslim 97%
Jordan — Muslim 92%
Morocco — Muslim 98.7%
Pakistan — Muslim 97%
Palestine — Muslim 99%
Syria — Muslim 90%
Tajikistan — Muslim 90%
Turkey — Muslim 99.8%
United Arab Emirates — Muslim 96%
100% will usher in the peace of ‘Dar-es-Salaam’ — the Islamic House of Peace. Here there’s supposed to be peace, because everybody is a Muslim, the Madrasses are the only schools, & the Koran is the only word, such as in:
Afghanistan — Muslim 100%
Saudi Arabia — Muslim 100%
Somalia — Muslim 100%
Yemen — Muslim 100%
Unfortunately, peace is never achieved, as in these 100% states the most radical Muslims intimidate & spew hatred, & satisfy their blood lust by killing less radical Muslims, for a variety of reasons.
“Before I was nine I had learned the basic canon of Arab life. It was me against my brother; me & my brother against our father; my family against my cousins & the clan; the clan against the tribe; the tribe against the world, & all of us against the infidel.” — Leon Uris, “The Haj”
It is important to understand that in some countries, with well under 100% Muslim populations, such as France, the minority Muslim populations live in ghettos, within which they are 100% Muslim, & within which they live by Sharia Law. The national police do not even enter these ghettos. There are no national courts nor schools nor non-Muslim religious facilities. In such situations, Muslims do not integrate into the community at large. The children attend madrasses. They learn only the Koran. To even associate with an infidel is a crime punishable with death. Therefore, in some areas of certain nations, Muslim Imams & extremists exercise more power than the national average would indicate.
Learn more about Islamic doctrine: What Makes Islam So Successful?

13.Re-examine the status & validity of the international commission of inquiry

Background:

On February 2, William Schabas resigned his position as Head of the UN Committee investigating the role of Israel in the 2014 Israel Gaza Conflict. His decision to resign came following a decision by the Council to open an investigation regarding a conflict of interest on his part, when it was discovered that Schabas received payment from the Palestinian Authority in return for a legal opinion regarding issues which the Committee is responsible for.

From the outset, when Schabas was appointed as Head of the Committee many voices protested the lack of objectivity & conflict of interest, these claims were backed up by Schabas’ previous statements & actions which clearly reflect his obvious anti-Israel opinions.

Schabas’ resignation comes at a very late stage. The Committee is diligently working on assembling evidence & writing their conclusions in the past five months, when throughout this critical period Schabas headed the Committee.

The Initiative:

The Legal Forum for Israel has issued an official letter to the United Nations Human Rights Council demanding that the Committee’s entire work be invalidated due to the fact that the person who headed the Committee & dictated its work was lacking extreme objectivity & was in a severe conflict of interest.

The Forum claims that Schabas’ late resignation is only for appearances sake, & in order to prevent a formal investigation being opened into the matter of Schabas’ conflict of interest.

The Committee’s work is near completion so Schabas’ resignation is ‘inconsequential’.

The Legal Forum has widely circulated this letter to several authorities, including the UN Human Rights Council, to each of its members personally, the Prime Minister’s Office, & the Foreign Ministry.

How Can You Help?

As the report is due to be published in early March, & as the contents of the report are already clear, the Forum is working now to lay the groundwork to create widespread public outcry against the Report & its bias against the State of Israel. The aim is to recruit the general public to publicly oppose the report by addressing the matter in the social media, local Jewish media & any other means that are available. Attached is the letter sent to the UN which can be used as a basis for any activity relating to this matter.

The more we are able to reach a wider audience, the more we can strengthen this initiative with public protest.

The Legal Forum will be sending out press releases to the international media, as well as articles by members & partners of the Forum and, & widespread calls in the social media nearer the time of the publication of report.

The first article was published this morning in Israel Hayom: http://www.israelhayom.co.il/article/261143

In order to do significantly influence world public opinion we need your help.

We would be very grateful if you would be able to take part in this vital & significant initiative, & in addition we would welcome any suggestions you may have regarding suitable individuals to join this initiative.

For any questions or guidance & for coordination purposes, please contact the Legal Forum atyifat@haforum.org.il.

Thank you very much in advance,

The Legal Forum for Israel

The Legal Forum for Israel is a non-profit organization dedicated to strengthening the Jewish identity of the State of Israel, ensuring sound government & protecting human rights.
The Forum’s activities are carried out by attorneys, & legal & financial experts, who are acting to protect human rights in Israel. To continue this valuable work, we need your help. Please donate to The Legal Forum so that justice can prevail.

DONATIONS

http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?f=001BbC2y-oW2icXkjyUrmgMJOKtYpjusN_AF3Sv2_eI45iThYiOvb6xEMhS9ULO2V6kBT4KSQPqZ2j4tUk23CZcorOgyj720JqjXicyHp9dpybLXZ9e3tBXKVerfog8S2UnVo75O7WKBlMxOKlaLqdpRtd8_GuxgQh8PM44hZogq4w=&c=DIErFQe7P5n3S6exX-xpqRvhKUs1Lu4XL–iQpnBQv7ynM5z-fzgrA==&ch=96tmP__JOSX68Zs3jQYFPKr9kMVKoe7PXW4D6Urt5nM5PVgeC_iaQg==

H.E. Joachim Rücker, President of the United Nations Human Rights Council

H.E. Ms. Filloreta Kodra, Vice President of the United Nations Human Rights Council

H.E. Mr. Juan Esteban Aguirre Martinez, Vice President of the United Nations Human Rights Council

H.E. Mr. Mukhtar Tileuberdi, Vice President of the United Nations Human Rights Council

Council, H.E. Mr. Mothusi Bruce Rabasha Palai , Vice President & Rapporteur of the United Nations Human Rights Council

H.E. Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights

Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR)
Palais Wilson
52 rue des Pâquis
CH-1201 Geneva, Switzerland.

February 11, 2015

Excellences,

Re: A call to re-examine the status & validity of the international commission of inquiry following recent developments

In the name of lawyers & academics throughout the world associated with, & supporting the Legal Forum for Israel, we must urge you to re-examine the validity of the report of the international commission of inquiry (hereinafter: CoI), assigned with investigating “all violations of international humanitarian law & international human rights law in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, in the context of the military operations conducted since 13 June 2014? (United Nations Human Rights Council [hereinafter: UNHRC] statement, 11 August 2014), which is due to be published in March.

We urge you to examine the fact that the conclusions & recommendations of this report may very well been compromised by Mr. William Schabas’ leadership throughout the critical time he headed the commission, especially given the latest developments & discoveries regarding Mr. Schabas.

We urge the UNHRC to declare the CoI’s report inadmissible, & to declare any conclusions & recommendations by this committee to be null & void, & this for the following reasons:

On 2 February, Mr. William Schabas stepped down from the UNHRC CoI he headed. Mr. Schabas resigned following the decisions by the Bureau of the Human Rights Council to examine findings that Mr. Schabas had received payment from the Palestinian Liberation Organization (hereinafter: PLO) for legal work & to request a legal opinion on the matter from UN Headquarters.

Mr. Schabas accepted the post despite having a conflict of interest due to his contractual relationship with the PLO on a matter relevant to the mandate of the Commission of Inquiry. Mr. Schabas has written a legal opinion for the Palestine Liberation Organization in 2012, for which he was paid $1,300. This fact was concealed both by Mr. Schabas himself & by the PLO. Mr. Schabas was not completely truthful in declaring on a UN application form for a previous position that he has “no official, professional, personal or financial relationships that might cause him/her to limit the extent of their inquiries, to limit disclosure, or to weaken or slant findings in any way.” Mr. Schabas continued to deny his conflict of interest after being appointed as Chairman of the CoI.

Mr. Schabas has a long history of outspoken hostility towards Israel, both in statements & actions, which should have precluded his participation in the CoI from the start (see appendix for several examples of such problematic comments & written statements made by Mr. Schabas that clearly demonstrate that he has already solidified his opinions on Israel, including its conduct during previous conflicts with Hamas). Mr. Schabas has harmed the cause of international justice & human rights by accepting the position of head of the Commission despite his well-documented anti-Israel bias & despite understanding full well the conflict of interest created by his previous work for the PLO.

Furthermore, the Palestinian leadership has harmed its reputation, the cause of human rights & justice, & its own efforts in the international legal arena. The Palestinian officials leading the Palestinian’s international legal strategy supported Mr. Schabas’ appointment as head of the Commission, despite knowing of his conflict of interest. They concealed this information from the UN & the international community.

Mr. Schabas’ resignation cannot whitewash the fundamental & inherent bias of the Commission itself, including in its mandate. The removal of one symptom does not cure the disease. Furthermore, even though Mr. Schabas claimed he has stepped down immediately to prevent the issue from overshadowing the preparation of the report & its findings, which are due to be published in March, Mr. Schabas’ imprint on the final report cannot be purged after he directed & conducted the five-months-long research & evidence-gathering phases, with the drafting work already begun.

According to a statement released by the UNHRC on August 11, 2014, “The President of the Human Rights Council, Ambassador Baudelaire Ndong Ella (Gabon), announced today the appointment of Amal Alamuddin, Doudou Diène & William Schabas to serve as members of the independent, international commission of inquiry to investigate all violations of international humanitarian law & international human rights law.… in the context of the military operations conducted since 13 June 2014.” The facts stated above seem to question the independent nature of this commission, & that of any of its findings.

In light all the above, we fear that The UNHRC is risking the reputation of the UN & human rights by showing an extreme bias against the State of Israel. This bias already found expression in appointing, time after time, people known for their hostility & bias against Israel to positions relating to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (such as Mr. Schabas, & the previous two “Special Rapporteurs on Human Rights in the Palestinian Territories”, Mr. Richard Falk & Mr. John Dugard). By taking the findings of the CoI seriously after the resignation of Mr. William Schabas, the UNHRC is following that tradition & discrediting itself.

Moreover, the committee is meant to serve as judge & jury, representing the international community’s interest & as such its conclusions may have extensive & serious implications. Given that the UNHRC is obligated to protect due process beyond any reasonable doubt, the doubts raised by facts shown in this letter clearly creates valid & serious concerns regarding Mr. Schabas’ ability to impartially lead an inquiry with regards to Israel.

We fully support the noble cause of the UNHRC as it is declared in their mandate, & urges the UNHRC to avoid taking actions that might further undermine their position as objective, fair & true protectors of human right.

In conclusion, there seems to be no doubt as to the path the UNHRC must take. We urge the UNHRC to declare the CoI’s report inadmissible, not be satisfied with the mere resignation of Mr. Schabas at this point, & to declare any conclusions & recommendations by this committee to be null & void.

Sincerely,

Nachi Eyal,

CEO, Legal ForForum for Israel

Copy:

H.E. Ban Ki Moon, UN Secretary General

H.E Benjamin Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister

The Israeli Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Appendix

Introduction:

The following examples are Quotes of comments & written statements made by Mr. Schabas. These examples clearly demonstrate Mr. Schabas’ formerly solidified opinions against Israel, & his general approach that such bias is acceptable.

Moreover, some of these comments contain inaccuracies of basic facts which reveal a dangerous lack of knowledge in someone making supposed expert statements.

In addition, his history of statements on terrorism & the war crimes of the Assad regime in Syria, as well as on Iran, present further proof of his bias & animus towards Israel & others involved in the fight against terrorism.

Examples of statements made by Mr. Schabas: Lack of Impartiality

Mr. Schabas has made his acceptance of mixing politics & justice quite clear:

“I don’t have a problem with ‘one-sided’ justice because there is a political dimension to this kind of justice. & it is inevitable that we will make political choices in deciding whom to prosecute.”[1]

Extreme Bias against Israel:

“I would have been inclined to speak about crimes against humanity, war crimes & the crime of aggression all of which can be shown have been perpetrated in various times during the history of the state of Israel“[2]

Efforts to Bring Israel before the ICC:

Mr. Schabas has admitted not only that he believes that Israel should be tried before the International Criminal Court but that he is actively working to bring that about:

“It is important point to mention that the ICC has jurisdiction over crimes committed on the territory of Palestine since 2002…. War crimes & crimes against humanity perpetrated in Palestine & that the obstacle at this time moving forward is simply a decision by the prosecutor of the ICC, much of my efforts it this time is trying to get the decision revoked.”[3]

“But everybody knows that it [the Yugoslavia Tribunal] had nevertheless a political agenda because it was created by the Security Council. It created a Tribunal for Yugoslavia but it did not create a Tribunal for Israel, for example this is the political dimension of the contemporary tribunals.”[4]

Referring to prosecution before the ICC, Mr. Schabas said:

“I believe that pretending the prosecution of Sudan is not political is a mistake too. Of course it is political. Why are we going after the president of Sudan for Darfur & not the president of Israel for Gaza? Because of politics.”[5]

In addition to bias there is also a basic mistake in facts:

Israel is a parliamentary democracy & the president of Israel holds a largely ceremonial role that has absolutely no connection with the military conflict with Hamas. The president at the time comment was made was Shimon Peres, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate.

Among his statements against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu were those made during the Russell Tribunal on Palestine in October 2012: “My favorite would be Netanyahu in the dock of the International Criminal Court.”[6] Another basic mistake in facts:

This comment was made in connection to the January 2009 Gaza conflict. At that time Ehud Olmert was prime minister & not Netanyahu, who was head of the opposition.

The Goldstone Report

Mr. Schabas has made frequent statements of support for the Goldstone Report; a previous UNHRC Fact Finding Mission on the 2009 Gaza conflict, Even after Judge Goldstone, the Chairman of the Fact-finding Mission retracted the findings in an article in “The Washington Post” in April 2011. Mr. Schabas has stated that:

“When we look at the situation in Palestine we all hope maybe a legal way can help us find a way out of it & that is why we should encourage developments such is the Goldstone Report.”[7]

The Russell Tribunal on Palestine

Mr. Schabas has also expressed his support for the Russell Tribunal on Palestine & actually appeared before the tribunal in October 2012:

“The value of a body like the Russell Tribunal is to remind people (of instruments like the Goldstone Report) & to make sure they don’t slip from our fingers”[8]

Judge Goldstone wrote about the tribunal in the New York Times: “It is not a ‘tribunal.’ The ‘evidence’ is going to be one-sided & the members of the ‘jury’ are critics whose harsh views of Israel are well known.”[9]

Elliott Abrams, a former US Deputy National Security Advisor, described the tribunal as “a part of the serious international effort to destroy the state of Israel by breaking its economic & political ties to other nations.”[10]

Excusing Hamas’ Terrorism

Mr. Schabas has refused to label Hamas a terrorist organization, most recently in an interview earlier this week with Israel’s Channel 2 news. This despite Hamas being designated as a terrorist organization by the US, the European Union & other leading democracies, among them Canada & Australia.

In reference to the 2009 Gaza conflict, he grossly understated Hamas’ war crimes:

“Maybe Hamas didn’t behave properly… but it doesn’t challenge in any significant way the conclusion that Israel violated international law.”[11]

Habayit Hayehudi leader Naftali Bennett: We need 17 seats, otherwise we will not be able to stop the establishment of a Palestinian state or the next disengagement • Yahad Haam Itanu leader Eli Yishai: We must be Netanyahu’s mezuzah in next government.

By Yehuda Shlezinger

Photo credit: Uri Lenz  Habayit Hayehudi leader Naftali Bennett, Monday

Habayit Hayehudi leader Naftali Bennett made an apparent gibe on Monday at Eli Yishai’s Yahad Haam Itanu Party. “We need to know we will have a strong & dominant religious front. No extremists or fragments of parties,” Bennett said at a “B’Sheva” conference in Jerusalem.

“It will not help to have one party with 10 seats & another with three & half,” Bennett said. “We want one with 17 seats, otherwise we will not be able to stop the establishment of a Palestinian state or the next disengagement.”

Yishai, who spoke after Bennett at the conference, responded: “I was the first to stand up & say I would recommend that Netanyahu form the next government. We have to be his mezuzah. If we are strong, Netanyahu will not turn to Buji [Isaac Herzog] to form a national unity government. … We will be the surprise of these elections.”

The sparring between Habayit Hayehudi & Yahad Haam Itanu began on Sunday, when Bennett told Kol Chai Radio that MK Yoni Chetboun, who left Habayit Hayehudi to join Yahad Haam Itanu, had supported criminal sanctions against yeshiva students who dodge the draft & then changed his vote. “Chetboun has become quite the righteous man, yet he favored criminal sanctions against yeshiva students,” Bennett said. “What happened that he is suddenly donning the coat of a righteous man & playing a different role?”

Chetboun called Bennett’s statement a “bold faced lie.” Speaking to Kol Berama radio, Chetboun said Bennett’s remarks were a “known Bennett strategy.”

“Whenever he feels pressure he starts attacking weak spots,” Chetboun said. “Bennett is trying to split the haredi & national religious communities.”

says Russian defense official • Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal expected to arrive in Tehran in coming days to meet Iranian leaders.

By Daviv Baron, Eli Leon, News Agencies & Israel Hayom Staff

An Antey-2500 battery. The Antey-2500 can engage missiles traveling at 10,100 miles per hour, with a range of 160 miles | Photo credit: AFP

Russia has offered Iran its latest Antey-2500 missiles, the head of Russian state defense conglomerate Rostec said on Monday according to media reports, after a deal to supply less powerful S-300 missiles was dropped under Western pressure.

Sergei Chemezov said Iran was now considering the offer, TASS news agency reported.

Russia scrapped a contract to supply Iran with S-300 surface-to-air missiles under Western pressure in 2010, & Iran later filed a $4 billion international arbitration suit against Russia in Geneva, but the two countries remain allies.

The United States & Israel lobbied Russia to block the missile sale, saying it could be used to shield Iran’s nuclear facilities from possible future air strikes.

There was no immediate response to Chemezov’s comments from Iran, Israel or the United States.

“As far as Iran is concerned, we offered Antey-2500 instead of S-300. They are thinking. No decision has been made yet,” Chemezov was quoted as saying.

The Antey-2500 was developed from the 1980s-generation S-300V system (SA-12A Gladiator & SA-12B Giant). It can engage missiles traveling at 4,500 meters per second (10,100 miles per hour), with a range of 250 kilometers (160 miles), according to the company that makes it, Almaz-Antey.

The S-300 missiles have a 125-mile range & Russia has stoked tensions with the West by trying to sell them to Syria & other Middle Eastern countries.

Chemezov told reporters that conflicts in the Middle East have helped boost Russian arm sales, according to TASS.

“I don’t conceal it, & everyone understands this, the more conflicts there are, the more they buy weapons from us. Volumes are continuing to grow despite sanctions. Mainly, it’s Latin America & the Middle East,” he was quoted as saying.

` Meanwhile, Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal is expected to arrive in Tehran in the coming days to meet Iranian leaders. It will be his first visit to Iran since the onset of the Syrian civil war, which led to strained ties between Hamas & Iran over Hamas’ support of rebel groups seeking to topple the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

24 February 2015 17.Libya’s Threat to Global Security

A New Failed State on the Mediterranean No End in Sight The deteriorating political & economic situation in Libya poses one of the greatest risks to global security in recent years and, unfortunately, the situation inside Libya appears likely to deteriorate in the weeks & months ahead. As a result, it is becoming imperative that North African & European countries, with the backing of the United States, intervene in order to prevent the situation from becoming even more unstable. This means that the international community will have to choose a side in Libya’s second civil war in four years & provide the military & economic support that the chosen side will need to defeat its rivals & secure control of the entire country. If not, Libya’s internal strife will worsen & Libya will come to resemble a North African version of Somalia. The Main Players in Libya’s Conflict As no side in Libya’s internal conflict possesses the power to overwhelm its rivals at present, the fighting in the country has largely reached a stalemate, with four rival groups jockeying for territory in Libya. First, the internationally-recognized parliament based in the eastern city of Tobruk, together with its allies, the Zintan Brigades, have lost control of Libya’s capital city, Tripoli, & many other strategic areas of the country, but remain a major force in the conflict & still control much of the country’s vital oil industry. So far, the major rival to the Tobruk government has been the alliance of the New General National Congress, an Islamist group, & the Libya Shield Force, a grouping of fundamentalist Islamic militant groups. This alliance controls Tripoli & most of the key centers in the western half of Libya. Another key force in Libya’s conflict is the radical Islamist Ansar al-Sharia militant group that has driven forces aligned with the Tobruk government from Libya’s second city, Benghazi. Finally, militants claiming allegiance to the Islamic State (IS) have emerged as a growing force in a number of areas of Libya in recent months & now control a few strategic cities along the northern coast of Libya. A Threat to the Neighbors As the stalemate in the conflict in Libya shows no sign of ending, & as new groups with more radical agendas enter the conflict, the threat that the unrest in Libya poses beyond the country’s borders grows exponentially. For Libya’s immediate neighbors, the threat is clear, as militants based in Libya have carried out attacks on targets in Egypt, Tunisia & Algeria in recent months, while they continue to target citizens of these countries currently living in Libya. Furthermore, as the conflict in Libya continues, militant groups such as the Islamic State will use Libya as a base to spread their region-wide insurgency to at-risk countries such as Egypt & Algeria, as well as to the less stable countries to Libya’s south. Finally, as we have seen in recent years, the five-and-a-half-years of conflict in Libya has allowed a steady flow of fighters & weapons to spread throughout North Africa & the Sahel, adding to the level of instability in these regions. Europe at Risk Libya’s conflict not only poses a threat to its immediate neighbors, but is also one of the leading threats to global security at present. For example, the unrest in Libya has resulted in a major surge in illegal immigration from Libya to Europe, via the Mediterranean. With militant groups gaining more territory in Libya, many European countries are fearful that this will allow militants to also cross the Mediterranean in order to carry out attacks on targets across Europe. Moreover, radicalized Europeans will find it even easier to join with militant groups in Libya than to join the Islamic State in Syria (as Turkey closes many routes into Syria) & this will allow these radicalized Europeans to not only fight alongside groups such as the Islamic State in Libya, but to be trained to carry out attacks back in Europe. Choosing Sides In order to prevent the conflict in Libya from carrying on indefinitely, or to allow one or more radical militant groups from seizing control of the entire country, the international community will have to choose sides in Libya’s civil war. The most obvious choice is for the international community to back the government in Tobruk, despite its ties to the former Qaddafi regime. However, it will take a significant economic & military commitment to allow this relatively weak group to retake control of the entire country. So far, no country, with the possible exception of Egypt, appears to have the will to commit such forces. If action is not taken soon, the Tobruk government may also lose control of the country’s main oil producing & shipping centers, a development that would dramatically strengthen the militants & enable them to gain even more territory in Libya & to fund operations around the region, a potentially major setback in the war against radical groups across the region.

18.Nefesh B’Nefesh awarded ‘Jerusalem Prize for Aliyah & Absorption’ By JPOST.COM STAFF 2/24/15

Nefesh B’ Nefesh flight brings 330 more North American immigrants to Israel.

Nefesh B’Nefesh offers $10,000 prize for outstanding Anglo olim.

Nefeh B’Nefesh awards ‘outstanding olim’ at Knesset.

Organization’s founders receive coveted prize for their contribution, efforts to ease Aliyah for olim.

Jerusalem Conference Chairman, Hanoch HaCohen Pueterkovsky, Minister of Economy, Naftali Bennett, Nefesh B’Nefesh Founder & Executive Director, Rabbi Yehoshua Fass & B’Sheva Chairman, Dudu Sa’ada. (photo credit:MIRI TZACHI)

The “Jerusalem Prize for Aliyah & Absorption” for 2015 was bestowed upon Nefesh B’Nefesh & its co-founders, Rabbi Yehoshua Fass & Tony Gelbart, Tuesday, at the 12th annual Jerusalem Conference. The prize was given for the organization’s “praiseworthy efforts in assisting tens of thousands of Jews make Aliyah to Israel & guaranteeing their successful integration into Israel’s northern & southern frontiers as well as the rest of the country”.
The prize was presented to Rabbi Fass on behalf of the organization by Minister of Economy, Naftali Bennett.
Operating since 2001, NBN has worked to ease the process of Aliya for thousands of diaspora Jews looking to make Israel their home by removing financial, logistical, & professional barriers holding them back.
Over 40,000 have made Aliya with NBN since its inception, 5000 of them enlisting to the IDF.

FREEMAN CENTER BROADCAST FEBRUARY 24, 2014

For Zion’s sake I will not hold my peace & for Jerusalem’s sake I will not rest.” Isaiah 62

FREEMAN CENTER FOR STRATEGIC STUDIES P.O. Box 35661 * Houston, Texas 77235-5661
* E-mail: bernards@sbcglobal.net OUR WEB SITE < www.freeman.org >

Dry Bones by Ya’acov Kirschen “Prediction of Things to Come” 2/24/15

Dry Bones blog updates for bernards@sbcglobal.net

20.Dry Bones by Ya’acov Kirschen “American Sumo” 2/24/15