Gail Winston Winston@winstonglobal.org Gaza War Diary 9 Fri-Sat. night Shavua Tov Nov. 17-20, 2016 Day 1071-1072 9 2am Dear Family & Friends,

The most important news I read Friday am was the blow-out reveal story by Gil Hoffman on Jerusalem Post’s front page, as follows.

It’s very ‘good’ as far as it goes. If you want to know more – facts & analysis, please click on our Website: WinstonIsraelInsight.com, click on the topic of “Books” in our title line & then click on Pollard Book for a 35 page printable E-book with 68 published articles listed – by Emanuel A. Winston, z’l, including the first one Manny wrote the day Jonathan was arrested November 1985.

\

1.US blames ‘Post’ Pollard interview in ’86 for strict incarceration, parole by GIL HOFFMAN JPost.com 11/18/2016 03:32

Judge: Decision on Pollard parole conditions next month

Pollard: It will take a miracle to get me back to Israel The interview Pollard gave in 1986 to Post correspondent Wolf Blitzer was claimed at the time of sentencing to be in violation of a plea agreement he had signed.

Jonathan & Esther Pollard. (photo credit:Courtesy)

“Israeli spy Jonathan Pollard’s strict parole conditions were set by the United States Parole Commission due in part to an interview he gave The Jerusalem Post nearly 30 years ago, documents submitted this week revealed. [Gail Sez: Jonathan Pollard was NOT indicted or convicted as a Spy. To keep labeling him as such is biased & prejudicial & dangerous to his case & well-being.]
That interview Pollard gave on November 20, 1986, to Post correspondent Wolf Blitzer was claimed at the time of sentencing to be in violation of a plea agreement he had signed – even though Pollard was in federal custody at the time of the interviews, which could only have taken place with the government’s permission, according to Pollard’s lawyer Eliot Lauer.

Now, 30 years later, Pollard is appealing the strict conditions for his parole which the parole commission imposed, based on that same interview. Those conditions prevent him from leaving his New York home after 7 p.m. or before 7 a.m., force him to submit any computer he uses for inspection, and requires him to wear a GPS monitoring device that forces him to violate the Sabbath.
In his appeal which was obtained by the Post, Lauer revealed information from documents submitted to the court by the parole commission, which attempted to explain why the special conditions were required for Pollard.
The commission cited Pollard having sent “at least 14 letters that contained classified information” from prison,” a charge Lauer firmly denied.
The commission also noted the interview Pollard gave to Blitzer, who later joined CNN [probably because of his Pollard interview & book: GW]. In his appeal submitted this week against the decision by US District Judge Katherine Forrest’s in August to keep in place Pollard’s parole conditions, Lauer wrote that “the commission also claimed that Pollard has ‘a propensity to violate the terms of his plea agreement and/or an order of the sentencing court,’ based on Pollard’s alleged violation in 1986 of a gag order issued prior to his sentencing, when Pollard, while incarcerated, was interviewed by journalist Wolf Blitzer, who was admitted to the prison by federal authorities,” the document said.
Lauer wrote in response that the commission misconstrued events from 30 years ago in an attempt to establish that Pollard’s “history and characteristics” justify the parole conditions. He wrote that the interview had no bearing on Pollard’s current propensity to violate the law, and does not provide any factual basis for the conditions.
“Even if, as the district court stated, the commission is ‘entitled to rely on sources that predate a parolee’s incarceration,’ that does not convert a single unproven instance of a violation of a gag order 30 years ago into an alleged ‘propensity’ to violate parole today,” Lauer wrote “Such reasoning also ignores the reformative effect of serving 30 years in prison as a model prisoner.”
Lauer added that the parole commission had failed to mention that Pollard was in federal custody at the time of the interviews, which could only have taken place because the government permitted them.
The documents indicating that the parole commission asked for special conditions for Pollard was not the first time the US government admitted that he was singled out due to the interview he gave the Post. In December 2012, a declassified 1987 CIA damage assessment of the Pollard case showed the CIA noting that Pollard had received a life sentence because he violated a plea agreement he had signed, by giving the interview.
Judge Aubrey Robinson sentenced Pollard to life in prison in March 1987, despite a plea agreement in which Pollard agreed to cooperate with the investigation against him, in return for a promise that he would not receive such a sentence.
The CIA document surmised that Robinson delivered the sentence because of the plea bargain violation, along with his perception of the severity of the espionage offense.
“Pollard’s willingness to grant an interview to journalist Wolf Blitzer for The Jerusalem Post without obtaining advance approval of the resulting text from the Justice Department violated the terms of his plea bargain,” the document said. “In the Blitzer interview, which was held at Petersberg Federal Penitentiary, Pollard provided extensive information on his motives and objectives in conducting espionage for Israel. He also provided Blitzer a general account with important examples of intelligence he passed to the Israelis, and emphasized that the Israeli government must have been aware of and approved of his activities.”
The interview was first published over several months in The Jerusalem Post, and was then reprinted in The Washington Post and The New York Times. The CIA speculated in the damage assessment that by giving the interview, Pollard was trying to mobilize support among American Jews and the Israeli government, but that strategy backfired.
Pollard’s wife, Esther, has said that neither Robinson nor the government had barred her husband from talking to the press. She said that if he wanted to meet with a reporter, all he had to do was obtain written permission from the Bureau of Prisons and restrict his comments to guidelines established for such interviews, which she said he did with Blitzer.
“The government did something highly suspicious by forgetting to send anyone to monitor these interviews,” Esther Pollard said. “Later, at sentencing, the prosecutor successfully inflamed the judge against Jonathan by falsely claiming that not only had the interviews been secretly arranged behind their backs, but that Jonathan had also disclosed highly classified material to Blitzer that compromised the intelligence community’s sources and methods.”
Esther Pollard pointed out that several years later, Blitzer said it appeared to him that the approval for the interview was “part of a calculated scheme” by the prosecutors designed to justify their planned violation of the plea agreement. She said government prosecutor Joseph diGenova later confirmed this by telling The Village Voice that he had hoped the interview would be the “rope” with which Pollard would hang himself.
Lauer and attorney Jacques Semmelman responded that the government’s claim that Pollard gave an unauthorized interview is baseless.

“The government approved Mr. Pollard’s application, and two interviews took place inside the prison with government approval,” the lawyers said in 2012. “Under the plea agreement, any interviews had to be approved by the director of Naval Intelligence. Mr. Pollard had been led to believe that his written requests for authorization had received all necessary approvals within the government. Indeed, it would not have been possible for Mr. Blitzer to enter the prison at all, much less equipped with tape recorder and camera, without government approval.”

1.US blames ‘Post’ Pollard interview in ’86 for strict incarceration, parole

2.Knesset Approves Arrangements Act in Preliminary Vote 58-50

3.Arlene Kushner: “Ain’t Over Yet”

4.Trump Circle Furious over Liberman’s Leftward Pull on Settlements 5.Trump associates to Liberman: Don’t move to the Left

6.Ben-Dahan: Gov’t Says ‘No’ to Jewish Home Demolitions 7.’Let Jewish owners get their land back’

8.PA Arabs Build Illegal ‘Outpost’ Near Jewish Town in Jordan Valley

9.Introducing Mike Pence: Israel’s Best Friend

10.Revalations By Fb I Re: Hillary’s Illegal Actions As Candidate For President

11.Trump considers appointing “anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist” Clare Lopez dep. security adviser

12.Obama unplugged: What to do? By Martin Sherman

2.Knesset Approves Arrangements Act in Preliminary Vote 58-50

The Knesset plenum Photo Credit: Courtesy the Knesset

The effort to save the Jewish community of Amona from demolition & eviction has overcome its first big hurdle Wednesday afternoon, as the Knesset plenum passed the Arrangements Act by a vote of 58-50 with no abstention. The latest version of the bill, which now goes to deliberations in committee, lets Arab claimants against Jewish settlements in Judea & Samaria to hold their title to the land while receiving market value compensation for it. The new law applies strictly to lands impounded by the Israeli government & not disputes over land that was settled without government sanction.

Finance Minister and Chairman of Kulanu Moshe Kahlon was reportedly uncertain whether his party should support the coalition bill, despite the fact that they were bound by “coalition discipline.” Kahlon was, and continues to be anxious about the possibility of a clash between the government and Israel’s Supreme Court, which is invested in seeing Amona, alongside the rightwing coalition, being brought down to their knees come December 25, the day decreed by the court.

Habayit Hayehudi Chairman and Education Minister Naftali Bennett, as well as Justice Minister Ayelet Shaked and the entire national religious faction refused to negotiate either the wording or the timing of the new legislation, which had been approved by the government on Sunday.

A spokesman for Habayit Hayehudi told Srugim, “Interestingly, what the Prime Minster hasn’t been able to do for an entire year we suddenly managed to do in three days.”

However, both Minister Kahlon and Coalition Chairman David Bitan (Likud) warned that the bill would be suspended should it meet resistance from the Supreme Court.

6.Ben-Dahan: Gov’t Says ‘No’ to Jewish Home Demolitions By: TPS / Tazpit News Agency Published: November 17th, 2016  
Deputy Defense Minister Eli Ben-Dahan in Netiv HaAvot Photo Credit: Meir Elipur/TPS By Ilana Messika/TPS

Deputy Minister of Defense and Jewish Home MK Eliyahu Ben-Dahan visited the Netiv HaAvot neighborhood in Gush Etzion Thursday in an effort to capitalize on the Legalization Bill, which passed a first reading in the Knesset plenum Wednesday. The controversial measure would block the court ordered demolition of both Netiv HaAvot and Amona communities by retroactively authorizing them.

The High Court of Justice has accepted Arab claims that both neighborhoods were at least partially built on privately-owned Arab land and ordered the government to dismantle the communities. Netiv Avot, located adjacent to the town of Elazar, is scheduled for demolition by March, 2018. Amona residents are scheduled to be evicted by December 25.

“The state’s position has been and remains clear: the Netiv HaAvot houses should not be destroyed!” Ben-Dahan stated. “Legal and practical solutions were offered to permit the houses to stay there and unfortunately, the Court chose to refuse them and decided against the government’s position,” he argued.

“In this reality, there is no choice but following up the ‘Legalization Bill,’ which will finally normalize the area and stop the perception that Israelis who live in Judea and Samaria are second-class citizens,” Ben-Dahan continued.

Acting Gush Etzion Council Head Moshe Seville also said that while the Legalization Bill constitutes an important step, the threat of demolition remains real and should be prevented.

Also Wednesday, lawyers for the Jerusalem Municipality asked the Jerusalem District Court to order immediate execution of 14 demolition orders for buildings in East Jerusalem neighborhood of Beit Hanina. Illegal construction there currently houses around 40 families.

The municipal request includes a demand to stop delaying the executions of the building demolitions concerning buildings, which were built on private property managed by the State.

In addition, Defense Minister Avidgor Liberman cautioned settlement activists against overreacting to the Legalization Bill, as well as to the election of Donald J. Trump as president of the United States. Judea and Samaria activists including Jewish Home MKs Naftali Bennett and Bezalel Smotrich welcomed Trump’s election and said they expected the new administration not to object to a large-scale building program in Judea and Samaria.

But speaking to local authorities on Thursday morning about the Amona eviction and the aforementioned bill, Liberman cautioned the activists about overreacting to the recent string of events. He said the incoming administration have asked Israel to behave “modestly” and warned people not to be taken by misguided perceptions of reality.

“I deplore the people attempting to steer wrong the residents and to set expectancies, because afterwards we still need to deal with the reality.

“I call for responsibility and not militancy. I think to represent the pragmatic and practical right in the middle of the populist right,” Liberman concluded.

TPS / Tazpit News Agency About the Author: TPS – The Tazpit News Agency provides news from Israel.

7.’Let Jewish owners get their land back’

Jerusalem City Councilman Arieh King says that Jerusalem municipality refuses to act to return land to Jewish owners. By Eliran Aharon, 17/11/16 18:44

Jerusalem City Council member Arieh King took Arutz Sheva on a tour of the neighborhood of Beit Hanina and other Jerusalem neighborhoods to see where Arab are living on Jewish-owned land, following the Jerusalem municipality’s statement that it would demolish illegal Arab construction if the town of Amona is destroyed.

King does not see a relationship between Amona and illegal Arab construction in Jerusalem. “Why are you connecting one to the other.”

King believes that there is greater justification for demolishing Arab buildings illegally constructed on Jewish-owned land in Jerusalem than there is to destroy Amona because it is much easier to determine ownership in Jerusalem, where the government and municipality have land registers, than it is in Amona, where land was given out by the King Hussein during Jordan’s illegal occupation of Judea and Samaria.

“In Amona there is the question: who is the owner, and what does the owner want? Here the owners are available, accessible. You can talk with them, and see what they want.”

King showed Arutz Sheva several Arab structures which had been built on Jewish-owned land and which the courts had ordered demolished. The municipality has not acted on those demolition orders despite years having passed since they were issued. “Once the municipality issues a demolition order, there is no reason why the demolition is not happening.”

According to King, this is part of the municipality’s discrimination against Jews. He says that the law is “being enforced just on Jews, and not on the Arabs or the Muslims.”

8.PA Arabs Build Illegal ‘Outpost’ Near Jewish Town in Jordan Valley By Andrew Friedman/TPS Jewish Press.com By: TPS / Tazpit News Agency Published: November 17th, 2016

Dozens of Arab attempting to create an illegal outpost near the city of Mehola in the Jordan Valley. Photo Credit: TPS

Dozens of Palestinian Authority Arab activists erected a large tent on state land in the northern Jordan Valley Thursday, near the Israeli town of Mehola.

Eyewitness Hezy Eyal told Tazpit Press Service (TPS) that the Arabs called it a “settlement outpost” and said the move was intended to “protest Jewish settlements in the region.” They named the area Yasser Arafat Village.

Eyal said about two dozen Israeli activists joined the protest, asking why Israelis were living on “Palestinian land” and demanding that IDF forces not expel the Arabs from the site.

IDF and local security forces responded to the demonstration & field commanders on site ordered the protesters to leave. As of this writing, the protesters have not left, and security forces have not removed them.

Jordan Valley Regional Council head David Elhayani told TPS that the move is reflective of a years-long reticence on the part of the government to exercise Israel’s sovereignty in the area.

“In recent years, [Arabs in the region] have become bolder than they were in the past,” he said. “They have been building illegal structures and taking over state lands. [They are nothing more than] law breakers who have figured out that law enforcement in this region has become lax.

“Today’s attempt by Palestinians to take over state lands is a challenge to the rule of law,” added Elhayani. “I demand not only that they be removed immediately, but that they also face criminal prosecution. Their cars should also be confiscated in order to set an example.”

TPS – The Tazpit News Agency provides news from Israel.

9.Introducing Mike Pence: Israel’s Best Friend

by Jerrold L. Sobel jerrysobel@israeliadvocate.net November 15, 2016

This may come as a shock to some people but politicians often say things just to get elected and forget what was said once they do. This past week, riding in on what portends to be the greatest pro-Israel administration since the inception of the Jewish state, President elect Donald Trump and his Vice President to be Mike Pence will assume the reins of power on January 20, 2017.
In choosing Pence as his running mate this past July, Trump wasn’t looking for a carbon copy of himself but a calm, establishment conservative well versed in the ways of Washington and a voice of reason to offset his own brashness. His faith in these qualities was exhibited this past Friday when he chose the Vice President-elect to head their transition team, abruptly replacing New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie. Joining him in this luminous position is a team of unprecedented pro Israel/Jewish advocates which for starters include:

Jason D. Greenblatt– Trump chief lawyer, close friend and orthodox Jew.

Rudy Giuliani– Long time influential friend of Israel, welcomed guest in Jerusalem’s corridors of power.

David Friedman– Speculated as possible Ambassador to Israel under the new Administration, Friedman has an impeccable pro-Israel stance

Steven Mnuchkin- Served as Trump’s campaign finance chairman and mentioned as possible Secretary of the Treasury. His father, Robert is a renowned Jewish philanthropist.

Jared Kushner– Orthodox Jewish Son-in-law of the President elect and close confidant has been described as “de facto campaign manager,” and was reportedly highly influential in the billionaire’s selection of Mike Pence as running mate.

Richard Grenell- On a short List of candidates for U.N. Ambassador. Arthur Schwartz a strategist for pro-Israel groups stated: “Ric Grenell has proven to be stridently pro Israel.”
However none of these refreshingly pro-Israel supporters have an actual congressional voting record, as does Mike Pence. Long before dreaming of one day serving as our 48th Vice President, Pence has had an impeccable record of ardent support for the Jewish state.
As far back the 104th Congress (2003-2004) he sponsored House Bill, H.Con.Res371. The bill supports the construction by Israel of a security fence to prevent Palestinian terrorist attacks and condemning the decision by the United Nations General Assembly to request the International Court of Justice render an opinion on the legality of the security fence. The bill was in response to what then was the latest anti-Israel denigration by the World body:
The United Nations General Assembly, ruled ‘‘The construction of the wall being built by Israel, the occupying power in the occupied Palestinian territory, including in and around east Jerusalem and its associated regime, is contrary to international law.’’ Having unfettered access to Israel, the carnage inflicted upon Jewish civilians by Palestinian terrorists unfortunately held no sway with the U.N.
In support of his bill Pence spoke before the House and 164 bi-partisan but mainly Republican supporters on July 9, 2004. and stated in part:
“With this extraordinarily biased decision, the International Court of Justice has become an international disgrace. This outrageous ruling confirms what many of us have feared, that opponents of Israel have overtaken the judicial process at the U.N.’s highest judicial court and have begun to use it for political aims on the world stage.”
During the 111th Congress (2009-2011), he was among 33 co-sponsors of H.Res 1734: Reaffirming Congressional opposition to the unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state; a decision not loved by all. The Arab American Institute had compiled a Scorecard to catalogue the voting record of the 112th Congress (January 3, 2011-January 3, 2013) on issues of importance to the Arab American community. Pence was roundly disparaged for the following:

· Supporting the Jerusalem Embassy Act.

· Withholding US contributions until the UN retracts accusations of Israeli war crimes.

· Opposing any unilateral declaration of a Palestinian state.

· prohibiting any US government document from referring to “Palestine.”

· De-funding the UN Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees.

If they didn’t love him on those issues it’s doubtful they did after he signed the Hoyer-Cantor Letter to then Secretary Clinton in 2010. It was written to counter an Obama onslaught against Israel for what then was another failed peace initiative. It read in part:
“We are writing to reaffirm our commitment to the unbreakable bond that exists between our country and the State of Israel and to express to you our deep concern over recent tension. In every important relationship, there will be occasional misunderstandings and conflicts. But our valuable bilateral relationship with Israel needs and deserves constant reinforcement.”
This past October Pence stressed both his and the President elect’s support for the Jewish State by echoing Trump’s vow to: “make America and Israel safe again” and said his administration would “stand side-by-side with the Jewish people.” Speaking of side by side, in a video prepared for the Israeli public, Pence had this to say:
“Israel is not just our strongest ally in the region. As I’ve said for so many years, Israel is our most cherished ally in the world.” He went on: “Donald Trump & I stand with Israel because Israel’s fight is our fight. Israel’s cause is our cause. Israel’s fate is our fate.” (see this short 3 minute video).
Well respected on both sides of the aisle throughout his tenure in the House of Representatives from 2001-13, he was a ranking member of the influential House Foreign Affairs Committee, where he advocated for robust military aid for Israel
In 2012 Pence left the House of Representatives to be Governor of Indiana, but never wavered in his steady support of Israel. He visited the Jewish state in late 2014 and met with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. During the trip David Brog, a member of the board of directors at Christians United for Israel, praised the Indiana governor as one of the Jewish state’s “most steadfast supporters.”
No doubt, for a myriad of reasons the 100 days following inauguration will see ups and downs as the new Administration fights for its footing. But for proponents of Israel and Jewish concerns 8 years of political Winter has finally ended. The Trump Administration is replete with many friends of Israel, but none greater than Mike Pence.

Freeman Center Broadcast – November 11 2015

For Zion’s sake I will not hold my peace and 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 >

To keep Freeman List broadcasts coming, it is essential to contribute!

10.REVALATIONS BY FB I re: HILLARY CLINTON’S ILLEGAL ACTIONS AS CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT

An email to me from the Orthodox Union says the following. I think it is fairly reliable:

However, with the revelations of the FBI, in regard to the Democratic candidate for President, Hillary Clinton. As to her misconduct in supervising her E-mail exchanges, the claims of the “lunatic fringe” are no longer dismissible. This was particularly so, since the reopening of the matter by FBI head James Comey. Hillary Clinton’s apparent illegal actions, which have been met by an unable or unwilling governmental response, gave the impression that she, or in fact, anyone connected well enough, to those in authority, are above the law.

Could a criminal or law violator, well placed enough, become the President of the United States? It seemed quite plausible that the concentration of power, now in hands the current American government, is a threat not only to American democracy but also to people all over the world. Particularly so, it appears to many, that the State Of Israel’s freedom, if not existence, has already been endangered by the arrogance of power Obama Administration utilized to conclude the nuclear deal with Iran.

We are warned by the MIshnah, in the “Ethics of the Fathers” (Chapter 3, part 2) of the consequences when human behavior is not constrained and regulated by a strong government. “Pray for the strength and stablility of the kingdom,for without this a man will consume his compatriot alive.” There are numerous such examples in history when the governmental powers were unable to function. An example of this in the not too distant past occurred in New Orleans, Louisiana, in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. With the flood waters of the storm holding the police at bay, all types of evil elements in society and animalistic impulses, normally held in check, rampaged through the city.

A similar, derivative, of the type of scenario, which the Mishnah presents, is when the opportunity for evil to function and flourish arises, at a time when the government becomes grossly powerful and dominant over society. Then, those in power can act upon the citizenry in any way they please, and demand compliance to do almost anything. That is the case in totalitarianism,. A government acts similarly, to a lesser degree, when it amasses more and more power, and as a result of this growing concentration of power, behaves in an increasingly abusive fashion. This where the FBI and other sources have shown the United States is situated today, as the US president is elected.

As a result of the creation of a concentration of power by the relatively select chosen few during the years of the Obama Administration in the hands of those sharing President Obama’s political outlook, it seemed questionable if the government’s choice and dictate can be significantly opposed. Hillary Clinton, designated to perpetuate and enhance this oligarchy’s control, had been shielded by the administration, in order that her candidacy would not be negatively impacted by the issues raised by the FBI and others who “leaked” similar concerns, in the election.

This can be understood in light of the fact that the very significant disclosures of FBI head Comey, implicating Hillary Clinton in possible illegal conduct were accompanied by an anemic presentation with regard to actual legal accusations and Comey’s own weakness. Add to that Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s inability or unwillingness to go into the matter and the reported intransigence of the Justice Department.

The incremental amassing of power is not in itself problematic. In fact, even Israel had a king. But the select group of people being discussed here, do not possess the lofty aspirations of King David. In fact in many ways, these people hold values which are to a significant degree nihilistic. An oligarchy accountable to no one, coupled with the nihilistic values of that oligarchy, is not unlike the scenario stated in the Mishnah.

This present nihilistic oligarchy, while not anarchy, is similar to it, in that creates the real social danger, where people can be “consumed alive” by their fellow man.

Other indications of the existence of this nihilist oligarchy are not hard to find.

It was reported that the Clinton Foundation received a substantial contribution from a small Arab state in the Persian Gulf region named Qatar. Qatar is a major financial supporter of the Hamas movement, ruling Gaza on Israel’s southwestern border. Notably, as it is the Gaza affiliate of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, its ideology is not dissimilar to the ideology to that of ISIS, the Islamic State of Iraq & Syria. President Obama, after the burning alive of a captured Jordanian pilot was filmed & recorded by video, remarked that the ideology of ISIS is bankrupt & must be degraded & destroyed.

Yet, the Clinton Foundation received an enormous contribution from Qatar during the time Hillary Clinton served under Obama as Secretary of State. Obviously, either Qatar has received some type of political compensation for its effort, or has good reason to expect it will in the future. Thus, it would appropriate if someone in the Obama Administration would have said that the former Secretary of State is morally bankrupt, or at the least, corrupt, for associating with such a country as Qatar in this manner! Clearly, no such statement will ever be uttered by anyone in that nihilistic oligarchy.

Most significantly, particularly for the pro-Israel Jewish voter, are the remarks and opinions of the heir apparent of the Obama legacy, Hillary Clinton, on Israel.

In direct opposition to nihilism is the acknowledgement that there is objective truth and obligatory moral behavior which are derived from that truth. We Jews known that this truth, the Torah, is obligatory, for both Jew and gentile, though, each in his own way. This is because these obligations were given by the same source, Moses, to all mankind. This law, was promulgated in Jerusalem, at the site of the Sanhedrin, in an area, known today, as the highly politically contested Temple Mount.

In the future,with G-d’s help, the law will again be promulgated there. This is, in essence, what the whole authentic Zionist enterprise is all about.

What was developing in the United States was the attempted ascent of a chosen few, “liberated” by an nihilistic ideology, empowered by an unaccountability born of an ever growing concentration of power.
Hillary Clinton’s sharply anti-Israel remarks, such as those appearing in her memoir, “Hard Choices“, are really expressions of her inability to accept law, Mosaic Law, which demands, universal compliance. Thus, comments in this book, stating that Israel is an occupying power and “denies dignity and self determination” to the inhabitants of what the international community erroneously calls the ‘West Bank’ reveal an intrinsic inability to comply with law. Her inability to comply with what is incumbent upon her, in the case of Jewish sovereignty, most significantly in the area of the Temple Mount, shows clearly that she cannot subordinate herself to that which the Mosaic Law specifically demands from all humanity.

The above, surely will seem disturbing to many of the liberal Jewish voting public who support Hillary Clinton. Many of them are Jews, in name only, who by their consumption of pork & legitimization of Jewish intermarriage & homosexuality are afflicted with same legal insubordination. This legal defiance & that of so many others, particularly the oligarchic elite who are supportive of Hillary Clinton’s candidacy & ignore the ordinary American, such as the white working class, is rooted in their belief in their own power.

Adolf Hitler was the ultimate nihilist. Yet, he portrayed himself as a liberal. The words of one of his speeches speak, for themselves. “Providence has ordained that I be the greatest liberator of humanity. I am freeing man from…a false vision.” Then, in the same speech, this self proclaimed man of liberty and freedom, clearly identified what he believed to be the source of all repression & bondage.

It was the Jews and their law and their imperative for universal acceptance of that law. “I am freeing man from…a false vision called conscience and morality.” “The Ten Commandments have lost their validity”. “Conscience is a Jewish invention.”

Hitler proceeded to totally concentrate authority in the oligarchic nihilistic Nazi state. Then in that state of affairs, the Nazis, and the German people, liberated from any legal restraint and accountability, did exactly what the Mishnah warned against. Man consumed his fellow man, in ways that even today, one cannot even contemplate, with those most particularly devoured being the Jews. Obama and Hillary put Israel in that place.

On Election Day in the US, those who rule in the United States are endeavoring are endeavoring to retain & enhance their nihilistic oligarchy. What is developing in the United States is the attempted ascent of a chosen few, “liberated” by an nihilistic ideology, empowered by an unaccountability born of an ever growing concentration of power.

With a little insight, all, and particularly Jews, can and must see just how dangerous these people are. Even those totally lacking in such insight, should be alarmed, just by seeing Hillary Clinton’s involvement with the PLO, Hamas, Qatar, groups whose aspirations are very similar if not identical to those of Adolf Hitler. Furthermore, this oligarchy’s connection to Iran, barely been mentioned here, is there for all to see.

Did those people claiming to be against poverty war and injustice see how the Mishnah’s warning of man devouring man is related to this election and not cast their vote for Hillary Clinton? It seems there were enough others who did see it that way.

May Hashem enlighten the minds shrouded in the darkness of falsehood and may we merit to see that from “Zion will go forth Torah and the word of G-d from Jerusalem.”

=============

Please contribute to The Freeman Center’s essential educational activities. Mail check to address above or by paypal: http://www.freeman.org/paypal.htm

11.Trump considers appointing “anti-Muslim conspiracy theorist” Clare Lopez dep. security adviser

T. Belman. Clare Lopez and I have corresponded over the last half dozen years. She has been an ardent reader of Israpundit Daily Digest all this time. She is also an ardent fighter against the Jihadist ideology and all those who support it including the Muslim Brotherhood. The mainstream media have universally come out against her, identifying her as anti-Muslim and a conspiracy theorist, none of which she is. She is exactly what the doctor ordered. Hopefully Trump will give her the nod. If he does, then that means Trump is naming the enemy as the Jihadist ideology. Let’s hope.

Look at the sub title to this article right below.

Can you imagine Lopez had the temerity to accuse Huma Abedin of supporting Muslim Brotherhood.

Clare Lopez once accused Clinton aide Huma Abedin of supporting the Muslim Brotherhood

By Gabriel Samuels, The Independent

Donald Trump is reportedly considering appointing as his deputy security advisor the vice-president of a think-tank that has said Muslims are infiltrating the American government.

Clare Lopez, who works for the Center for Security Policy in Washington and is a former CIA operative, has reportedly been shortlisted by Mr. Trump’s advisors as an option for the role.

Ms Lopez is known for promoting the conspiracy that radical Muslim agents have infiltrated the US government and judicial system, and in 2014 accused president Barack Obama of giving military support to Al Qaeda. to help al-Qa’eda and the Muslim Brotherhood,” she told conservative news outlet TruNews.

During a speech in 2012, Ms Lopez told an audience she believed there were links between the US government and radical Islam: “The infiltration is obviously very deep and very broad within the bureaucracy, not just the top level, but throughout the federal system, including the intelligence community.”

Ms Lopez served as an adviser for rival presidential candidate Ted Cruz during the primaries, but Mr. Trump cited her work during his campaign to support his position against Muslim immigration.

12.Obama unplugged: What to do? By Martin Sherman

Israel must credibly convey that support for unilateral Palestinian statehood will not be a cost-free decision for whoever acts to effect it – or fails to foil it

Obama’s final months in power are a unique opportunity to correct the record, and, more important, score an achievement that his successors could scarcely undo.– Nathan Thrall, “Obama & Palestine: The Last Chance”, New York Review of Books, September 10, 2016.

Israel’s most urgent diplomatic mission today is to develop and implement a strategy that will outflank President Barack Obama in his final eight weeks in power. – Caroline Glick, “Checkmating Obama”, October 27, 2016.

The US elections are over. The die is cast. The American people—more deeply divided than ever before—have made their choice. As the virtual monopoly that the US electoral process had over the media begins to wane, other issues begin to dominate the discourse.
For Israel, the issue that, arguably, is the most pressing, is how to forestall any vindictive initiative from the Obama administration in the eight week “interregnum”, until his successor is inaugurated.

Ominous interregnum uncertainty.

True, the probability of such an initiative may have receded considerably following the trouncing of Obama’s Democratic Party, which may be too preoccupied with introspective soul-searching and internecine finger-pointing to open up a new confrontational front.

However, any complacency on this matter would be foolhardy. Indeed, far-from-implausible counter-arguments can be conceived of, that make the case that the stinging defeat might even stir the rancor of the outgoing administration towards Israel, increasing the probability of some inimical measure being undertaken against it.

Thus, in a recent New York Post article (November 14, 2016), Seth Mandel warns that Hillary’s loss may well accelerate “the Democrats’ turn against Israel” with the front-runner for the next Democratic National Committee chairman being Minnesota Rep. Keith Ellison, “a fiery critic of Israel”.

Accordingly, no matter how optimistic some pro-Israel elements might be as to the new spirit the Trump administration might infuse into US Mid-East policy, they would do well to heed the warning of one political analyst that this “may well have little impact on activity that could happen in the next two months until Obama leaves office.”

The growing potential for anti-Israeli sentiment in the Democratic Party could well comprise a tail-wind for carrying out the veiled threats emanating from the administration. Thus, two days after the elections, at a November 10 press-briefing, the State Department’s deputy spokesman, Mark Toner, underscored that “we view [the establishment of a Palestinian state] as the only means to a long-term solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict…So it’s going to remain this Administration’s pursuit until the very final moments”. In response to a question he added, ominously: “…but I can’t rule out that there may be a new initiative before the end of this administration.”

Bracing for a “Lame-Duck Surprise”

In the weeks before the election, speculation was rife as to some kind of adversarial move by the Obama administration before it leaves office.

Thus, the Wall Street Journal ran a piece entitled Israel Surprise?: Fears grow of a final days presidential ambush at the U.N. ( Oct. 31, 2016). Two weeks earlier, Dan Arbell, senior fellow, at the Brookings Institute posted his assessment, Does Obama really have a November surprise planned for Israel and the Palestinians? , (October 17, 2016), in which he predicted: “…Obama will not leave the White House without addressing the Israeli-Palestinian issue, one final time, as president”.

Likewise, Rafael Medoff posted an article in Algemeiner (November 7, 2016) headlined Israel, Jewish Groups Fear an Obama ‘December Surprise’ at the UN,detailing various proposals, reportedly under consideration by the outgoing administration (from unilateral recognition of a Palestinian state to punitive action against the “settlements” and their US supporters); and warning of the long-lasting detrimental impact they are likely to have on Israel and on any prospect for reducing Palestinian intransigence.

This largely reflects the concern expressed earlier by Gregg Roman , director of the Middle East Forum in Obama’s November surprise (The Hill, September 26, 2016): “Some say the surprise will be a speech laying down parameters for a final settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute or some type of formal censure of Israeli settlements in the West Bank, but the scenario generating most discussion is a decision to support, or perhaps not to veto a UN Security Council resolution recognizing a Palestinian state.”

Warning against any post-election complacency, Jonathan Schanzer, vice-president of the Washington based think -tank, Foundation for Defense of Democracies, cautioned that Trump’s victory over Clinton could, in fact, make Obama feel “less encumbered” about launching an end-of-term lame-duck Israeli-Palestinian diplomatic initiative.

Some proposed remedies

However, while the media abounded with ominous warnings as to possible hostile diplomatic initiatives from the White House, few, if any, of those sounding the alarm offered any formula of how to confront, contend and counter such moves.

One notable exception was Caroline Glick, who in a column Checkmating Obama, posted just prior to the elections (October 27, 2016) predicted: “Open season on Israel at the Security Council will commence November 9. The Palestinians are planning appropriately. Israel needs to plan, too. Israel’s most urgent diplomatic mission today is to develop and implement a strategy that will outflank President Barack Obama in his final eight weeks in power…Obama has waited eight years to exact his revenge on Israel for not supporting his hostile, strategically irrational policies… he has no interest in letting bygones be bygones.”

Glick, however, did not restrict herself to cautioning as to the prospective dangers looming on Israel’s political horizon. She also attempted to set out a recipe for dealing with them.

While her proactive problem-solving approach is in itself admirable, sadly the remedies she prescribes are highly unlikely to be effective.

If I understand her proposal correctly, these measures involve trying to enlist countries allegedly friendly to Israel (New Zealand and Uruguay are mentioned) to draft and submit a “balanced” resolution to the UN Security Council to stymie the passage of any one-sided anti-Israel resolution that Obama might refrain from vetoing, while trying to enlist Russia to support the former, and veto the latter—by “offer[ing] Putin to lobby Congress to cancel US sanctions against Russia over Russia’s annexation of Crimea”

Too little, too late, too tenuous

I do not wish to dwell in great detail on the glaring defects in these proposals, or on their low probability of success, which Glick herself acknowledges, admitting “There are many more ways for Israel to fail than succeed”.

Suffice it to say that as a response to an inimical initiative by Obama, they are far too little; far too late; and far too tenuous.

Thus, while Glick is correct in her overall approach of demonstrating that “attacking Israel is no longer cost free” and that “We are not powerless in the grip of circumstances. We have cards to play”, the measures she is proposing are hardly commensurate with the threat they are meant to counter. Moreover, there is probably not enough time to gear for their implementation, while their success is heavily dependent on the good will and reliability of others.

Instead, Israel needs to fashion a response which it can implement on its own, without requiring the collaboration of others, on its own timetable and which will be strong enough to effectively forestall the threat it was designed to deal with.

Such a response is entirely within Israel’s reach. All it requires is sufficient political will to carry it out.

Responding to unilateralism with unilateralism.

I have been advocating this kind of response for over half-a-decade, ever since the Palestinians raised the possibility of making a unilateral bid for independence at the UN in September 2011 – see Come September(August 18, 2011), where, much like Glick’s call in her recent article, I urged that “Israel must credibly convey that support for unilateral Palestinian statehood will not be a cost-free decision for whoever acts to effect it – or fails to act to foil it”. I have advanced it repeatedly in subsequent columns –see Israel’s only option (December 25, 2014).

Accordingly, should any measures, not mutually agreed upon, be instituted in international forums to advance the establishment of a Palestinian state, Israel should announce that, since consensual resolution of conflict has proved unattainable, it will seek other alternatives – now unavoidably unilateral.

Next, the Israeli leadership must muster the intellectual integrity not only to identify the Palestinians for what they really are – and what they themselves declare they are: an implacable enemy. It must also to undertake a policy that reflects this underlying and undeniable truth—now made even more starkly obvious by the recent Palestinian sponsored UNESCO resolution, denying any Jewish connection to the Temple Mount.

Clearly, as an implacable enemy, Israel has no moral obligation or practical interest in sustaining their economy or social order.

Independence implies…independence

Consequently, should Israel be confronted with an un-vetoed resolution to promote Palestinian statehood, it must convey in unequivocally clear terms to the Palestinians – and to their supporters – that if it is independence they demand, then independent they will have to be.

As a result, Israel will cease, forthwith, to provide all services and merchandise that it provides them today. In other words, no water, electricity, fuel, postal services, communications, port facilities, tax collection or remittances will be supplied by Israel any longer.

After all, what possible claim could be invoked to coerce one sovereign entity to provide for another allegedly sovereign entity – and an overtly adversarial one at that?

Indeed, when Israel declared its independence, no Arab country rushed to help it develop and evolve. Quite the opposite: The Arab world imposed embargoes and boycotts on it – and on anyone with the temerity to conduct commerce with it.

These proposed measures will vividly expose the farcical futility of the Palestinians’ endeavor for statehood, who almost two decades after the Oslo accords, and massive investment, have not produced anything but an untenable, divided entity, crippled by corruption and cronyism, with a dysfunctional polity, an illegitimate president, an unelected prime minister, and a feeble economy that, with its minuscule private sector and bloated public one, is unsustainable without the largesse of its alleged “oppressor.”

Nothing could do more to lay bare the absurdity of the Palestinians’ total dependence on the very body from which they seek independence.

Interregnum silver lining?

It is still too early to judge whether fears as to some spiteful anti-Israeli initiative at the UN or elsewhere by the outgoing president will be borne out, or whether his party’s sweeping defeat across the board will have left him chastened enough for him to choose to forego any further adversarial engagement until his successor takes office.

While Israel must be alive to the dangers any such initiative may entail, and be prepared to weather them, it might also present an opportunity for Israel to reiterate that should any one wish to impose on it the establishment of yet another homophobic, misogynistic Muslim-majority tyranny, that in all likelihood would become a forward base for radical Islamist terror, they will have to shoulder the costs to sustain it themselves.

That just might have a chilling effect on their enthusiasm for the whole idea of Palestinian statehood,

Martin Sherman (www.martinsherman.org) is the founder and executive director of the Israel Institute for Strategic Studies. (www.strategic-israel.org

13.The Unrepentant: Hillary, Libya & History By Gary Gambil & Teri Blumenfeld, The Spectator

Although Hillary Clinton lost her bid for the White House in part because of lingering public resentment over the 2012 terror attack that left four Americans dead in Benghazi, history will judge her even more harshly for her decisive role in the preceding U.S.-led military intervention in Libya.

In fact, then-Secretary of State Clinton was instrumental at three critical junctures in convincing President Obama to green-light and escalate the war to oust Libyan leader Moammar Qaddafi.
First was her decisive role in the initial U.S. decision to lead a NATO air campaign in Libya. Under intense pressure from European and Arab governments to stop Qaddafi’s forces from stamping out the incipient rebellion, Obama administration officials were deeply divided. Those opposing intervention included Vice President Joe Biden, National Security Advisor Tom Donilon, and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates. Those in favor included Samantha Power, a senior aide at the National Security Council, and UN Ambassador Susan Rice.

Although Secretary Clinton ostensibly took no position at first, she worked to pave the way for the intervention Power and Rice were urging by brokering an Arab League resolution calling for an internationally enforced no-fly zone. With that in hand on March 12, she flew to Paris to meet with European officials and Libyan opposition leader Mahmoud Jibril, after which she pressed Obama heavily to intervene. Gates later said that Clinton’s advocacy “put the president on the 51 side” of a “51-49” decision to intervene.

So what if the Obama administration had allowed regime forces to win? Qaddafi’s Libya was no democracy, but it was an occasional partner in the war on terror & its human rights record was steadily improving. Indeed, one of the reasons radical Islamists were so well poised to seize control of the revolt is that Qaddafi (unlike other Arab dictators) freed the large majority of them from his prisons.

There’s little reason to believe that Libya would have faced a humanitarian catastrophe if Qaddafi’s forces had pacified the revolt. Their subsequent recapture of Zuwiyah and other towns in early March had not produced mass civilian casualties. Sensationalist reports of mass rapes, mercenaries, and protester-murdering helicopters that animated calls for intervention in the early weeks of the war were later debunked.

Second, Clinton was influential in pressing for and publicly legitimating the administration’s shift from protecting civilians to overthrowing Qaddafi. This was not “mission creep” — it was decided before the first bomb fell.

While Obama was very reluctant to green-light this escalation, Clinton was less concerned that “every step puts you on a slippery slope,” recalled then-White House Mideast advisor Dennis B. Ross, paraphrasing her view as “we can’t fail in this.”

Although U.S. officials maintained throughout that the NATO intervention was strictly intended to protect civilians, Gates later acknowledged this was “fiction.” NATO interpreted UNSCR 1973 to be an open-ended mandate to pummel Qaddafi’s forces until “the regime has verifiably withdrawn to bases all military forces.” In other words, until the regime accepts military defeat and loss of power.

Though unwilling to give up power completely and unconditionally, Qaddafi continually appealed for cease-fires and dialogue throughout the war, via such intermediaries as retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral Charles R. Kubic, Turkey, Greece, Malta, the African Union, and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki Moon. “Come France, Italy, UK, America. Come, we will negotiate with you. Why are you attacking us?” the Libyan leader pleaded in an April 30 televised address.

There’s no reason to believe that Qaddafi and secular rebel groups couldn’t have agreed on a “pacted transition” to democracy that allowed regime elites some temporary role in government, as Islamist forces had not reached anywhere near their peak strength in the late spring of 2011. At least 3 senior State Department officials expressed misgivings about overthrowing Qaddafi: Director of Policy Planning Anne-Marie Slaughter, Assistant Secretary of State Philip H. Gordon & Jeremy Shapiro.

But the Libyan leader’s pleas were ignored. When the last NATO air strike of the war hit the dictator’s personal convoy as he attempted to flee his encircled hometown for exile abroad in October, leading to his capture and ad hoc execution, Clinton exclaimed giddily, “We came, we saw, he died.”

Jibril and other Libyan secularists might still have gained military superiority on the ground were it not for a third fateful American mistake. With Qaddafi’s forces holding their ground despite weeks of NATO airstrikes, Washington approved and facilitated a massive Qatari arms lift that largely bypassed the secular National Transitional Council (NTC) in favor of radical Islamists.

Those involved in this fiasco haven’t revealed much about it in contemporaneous emails or subsequent congressional testimony, but it’s clear that Clinton was an early advocate of covertly funneling arms into Libya & personally oversaw official communications with the Qataris throughout.

Owing to the combined impact of Secretary Clinton’s 3 errors in judgment, Libya today is a central logistical & operational hub for ISIS & other violent Islamist groups across North Africa & the MidEast.

Nevertheless, she continues to deny responsibility for the war to oust Qaddafi. “The decision was the president’s. Did I do the due diligence? Did I talk to everybody I could talk to? Did I visit every capitol and then report back to the president?” she said on the campaign trail last April. “Yes, I did. That’s what a secretary of state does. But at the end of the day, those are the decisions that are made by the president.”

History doesn’t cut the unrepentant [& unemployed] any breaks.

Teri Blumenfeld is researcher at the Investigative Project on Terrorism & the Middle East Forum. Gary C. Gambill is editor of Middle East Forum’s website & Research Fellow at Middle East Forum.

14.Permanent Link to 3,600-Year-Old Jewels Found in Judean Foothills3 by Ilana Messika JewishPress.com TPS / Tazpit News Agency 11/15/16 els Found in Judean Foothills Photo Credit: TPS

Israeli archaeologists on Monday announced the discovery of a rare treasure of gold & silver objects dating back about 3,600 years to the Middle Bronze Age, or the Canaanite period. They were found in the archaeological site of the Tel Gezer National Park, in Judean foothills near Beit Shemesh.

The excavation was conducted by Dr. Tzvika Tzuk, Director of Archaeology for the Israel Nature and Parks Authority in collaboration Dr. Eli Yanai, a retired Israel Antiquities Authority researcher, and Drs. Dan Warner and Jim Parker from the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary.

“This finding is a very significant find to help date the building and show the cultural transparency from Mesopotamia all the way in history down to the State of Israel,” stated Dr. Warner, who is also a historian and Bible teacher.

The treasure constitutes a foundation deposit for the rooms which, according to the archaeologists, represented offerings to deities, a theory supported by the administrative nature of the building and its proximity to the city gates.

“This is a foundation deposit, we found it underneath the house,” Dr. Warner told TPS. “They placed it there to appease the gods so that their house would still stand. These are the tallest preserved walls from this time period anywhere in Israel.”

Researchers managed to separate the findings into five separate parts, while some fragments of silver pieces such as rings and necklace could not be separated due to intensive corrosion.

The central deposit is a pendant with an eight-pointed star within a 3.8 cm diameter disc and a crescent on top of it, which represents a well-known symbol dating more than 1,000 years before that time period. Dr. Irit Ziffer identified the symbol as representing both Ishtar, the Mesopotamian East Semitic goddess of fertility, love, war, sex and power, as well as the Chinese moon god of the Akkadian culture.

The rest of the treasure is comprised of a gold banded scarab from Egypt dated to the Hyksos period, a silver chain, an earring, and another pendant that resembles an arrow.

The treasure was found in one block wrapped in cloth deposited in lidded pottery. Dr. Orit Shamir and Dr. Naama Sukenik of the organic material laboratory of the IAA identified the cloth as linen cloth according to the shape of the threads and weaving techniques.

Dr. Warner told TPS that the material in which the treasure was wrapped is one of the oldest pieces of fabric found in Israel, apart from the ones discovered in Megiddo, while only two textile samples from the Canaanite period have been found, one in Jericho and one in Rishon LeTzion.

“During the Canaanite period, Gezer was one of the cities of primordial importance in Israel and its significance continued until the moment King Solomon built the city anew ,” said Shaul Goldstein, CEO of INPA.

“This finding is a significant achievement, which sheds light on the Canaanite culture in Israel more than 3,600 years ago, and further consolidates the position of the Tel Gezer National Park site as an archaeological gem with great significance to Israel,” Goldstein said.

TPS – The Tazpit News Agency provides news from Israel.