Bizarre cette article de Shmuel Rosner, il commence par une serie de questions extremement judicieuses, cela tout au long de son article, mais finit en une ligne par une conclusion assez contradictoire.
Je pense aussi que encourager l'exode des Juifs de France, c'est en quelque sorte pour un israelien contredire violemment notre credo national qui est de resister et de ne pas ceder a la terreur.

Darlett, beaucoup de Juifs ont fui l'Europe pendant la deuxième guerre mondiale, parce qu'ils ont préféré vivre ailleurs que mourir "chez eux".

Aujourd'hui, on entend à nouveau "mort aux Juifs" dans les rues de France, et le gouvernement ne fait rien pour résoudre le problème, si ce n'est faire escorter les Juifs par l'armée. (*% Autant qu'ils vivent libres et droit dans leurs bottes, ça fait trop longtemps qu'ils rasent les murs d'un pays qui, en fait, n'est plus le leur.

Comme dit Valls, si les Juifs de France s'en vont, ce ne sera plus la France. Eh bien, les gouvernements socialistes successifs l'auront bien cherché, et en faisant fuir les Juifs, ils parachèveront la destruction de la France causée par leurs politiques sans queue ni tête.

Tu as raison Darlett,il dit que le conseil d'Israel aux Juifs de France d'emigrer est une capitulation ce qui est contraire à son credo de resistance.Mais je suppose que c'est une erreur involontaire.
Sa conclusion est exacte

French President: Muslims are ‘Main Victims’

And " Islam is compatible with democracy "


by Oliver Lane16 Jan 20150
Even as the bodies of two dead cartoonists from satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo were committed to the ground after a terrorist attack last week which killed twelve, French President Francois Hollande has insisted Muslims remain the “main victims”.

Speaking at the Arab Institute in Paris, the president reminded listeners that Muslims have “the same rights and the same duties as all citizens” and deserved “protection”.

Visiting the conference, which was focussing on the ‘Renewal of the Arab World’, president Hollande said: “It is the Muslims who are the first victims of fanaticism, fundamentalism, and intolerance. We should also remind people, and I do it every time wherever I find myself in the Arab world, that Islam is compatible with democracy”.

Despite his comments, which follow the murder of four Jewish shoppers in a Kosher delicatessen in Paris last week in an attack linked to the Charlie Hebdo massacre, France has now deployed thousands of police and troops to defend Jewish property.

Synagogues, shops, and schools across France and other European countries have experienced reduced opening times over the past week, as fears of copycat attacks permeate.

Isolated incidents or global war?

By Dore Gold www.israelhayom.com

In response to the first attack in Paris on the offices of the French satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, a member of a jihadi forum, affiliated with ISIS, wrote a very striking explanation as to why France in particular was targeted. As is usual in the jihadi world, which seeks to return to the early days of Islam centuries ago, history played an important role in his thinking: "France was once part of the Islamic land and it will be Islamic again."

What was he talking about? For years, global jihadi organizations have issued calls to retake al-Andalus, the Arabic name for Spain and those parts of the Iberian peninsula when they were held by the Muslims from 711 until 1492. This last summer ISIS members produced a video calling for the liberation of al-Andalus. But, it is often forgotten that shortly after the conquest of Spain, an Arab army crossed the Pyrenees and occupied territories that today are part of France. Having captured Bordeaux, it was met and defeated in 732 by a Frankish army led by Charles Martel at the Battle of Tours -- some 200 miles from Paris. Even after this historical battle, Arab armies did not halt their efforts to seize French territory. They in fact reached Lyons and threatened to occupy all of Provence. In fact, parts of France remained under Islamic rule until 759, when Narbonne, the main base of the invading Arab armies, fell.

Whether or not the attack in France was motivated by such historical memories, the passion to recover lost territories that were once under Islamic rule is a theme running through most of the organizations associated with the global jihadist network. It was no less than Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, who first articulated this theme: "Andalusia, Sicily, the Balkans, South Italy and Roman Sea Islands were all Islamic lands that had to be restored to the homeland of Islam; the Mediterranean and Red Sea should equally be part of the Islamic Empire as they were before." Al-Banna's writings, which are to this day still revered by most of the radical Islamic movements, are available on the internet today in Arabic and even in English.
In recent times, this ideological orientation of the Muslim Brotherhood has been best represented by Sheikh Yusuf Qaradawi, who is based in Qatar. Regarded by many as the highest spiritual authority in the Muslim Brotherhood, Qaradawi appeared on Qatari television in 2007 and declared: "I expect that Islam will conquer Europe without resorting to the sword or fighting. It will do so by means of da'wa (proselytizing) and ideology." The only geographic points he mentioned in relationship to this expansion of the Islamic realm were as follows: "The conquest of Rome -- the conquest of Italy, and Europe -- means that Islam will return to Europe once again."

Qaradawi, who appeared weekly on Al Jazeera, gave his patronage to a Muslim Brotherhood facility in a French chateau where Islamists used to train European Imams. Thousand of young Muslims were bussed into this retreat center. In short, Qaradawi's ideas had multiple platforms through which they could spread.
There were other organizations that took Qardawi's declarations a step further. Hamas, which is after all the Palestinian branch of the Muslim Brotherhood, has also made similar statements. Sheikh Younus al-Astal, who has had a leading role within the supreme religious body of Hamas (the Association of the Religious Scholars of Palestine) gave the following sermon in 2008 that was broadcast on Hamas television: "Very soon, Allah willing, Rome will be conquered, just like Constantinople was, as was prophesied by our Prophet Muhammad." He then spoke about how the "Islamic conquests ... will spread through Europe in its entirety" and beyond.

Dabiq, a journal published by ISIS, also deals with the conquest of Rome. The journal recently put on its cover a picture of Saint Peter's Square in Rome; the editors manipulated the photograph and put the flag of ISIS on the obelisk in the center. The journal also quotes the founder of al-Qaida in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, as saying: "We fight here while our goal is Rome." Before he led the insurgency in Iraq against the U.S. and its allies, Zarqawi actually set up a terrorist network for operations on European soil.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Turkey, under the ruling AKP Party, has also taken up the cause of recovering lost Islamic lands. In 2004, a U.S. State Department official sent a cable to Washington warning that at an event held at the AKP's main think tank, he heard the idea voiced that Turkey's role is to spread Islam in Europe, and "avenge the defeat at the siege of Vienna in 1683." The cable linked a high level Turkish official with this view. It was made public by WikiLeaks.
What all these statements teach us is that virtually all these radical Islamic leaders see themselves as in no less than a civilizational battle with the West. There have been those who do not want to depict this struggle in this way, including those in the West who, out of political correctness, refuse to discuss the threat of radical Islam. They also cling to the mistaken idea that the Muslim Brotherhood can become an ally against al-Qaida and its affiliates.
Last week, on January 9, the American journal National Review published emails, leaked from an Al Jazeera producer, about the attacks in France. He sought to play down the significance of the terror in Paris, rejecting the notion that this was a "civilizational attack on European values." He insisted that no one knows the motivation behind the attacks, suggesting perhaps that it was a reaction to France's military actions against ISIS, or its operations in Libya and Mali.
In other words, the Al Jazeera producer did not want his network to admit that the attack in Paris was motivated by an aggressive Islamist ideology, but rather preferred to blame Western policies, which if it became widely accepted would cripple its leaders and deny them the self-confidence to take any effective action. That is what has largely happened until now. It is no wonder that Al Jazeera, whose headquarters is located in Qatar, has been correctly described as the satellite channel of the Muslim Brotherhood.


In contrast, Ghassan Charbel, the editor-in-chief of Al Hayat, the leading newspaper in the Arab world, on Monday refused to play down the Paris attacks as a unique, one-time event: "No one can disregard the scale of the problem and the extent of the threat any more." Defying the political correctness of many of the world's capitals, he bravely told the truth about what was happening: "What is clear is that the Paris attack is just the opening shot of a global war that the Islamist extremists will be waging in the West and the rest of the world." He had no qualms about saying that the problem was the threat of radical Islam. Until the West internalizes his warning of what it is facing, unfortunately a new wave of attacks in the West will only be a matter of time.

How Saudi Arabia’s harsh legal punishments compare to the Islamic State’s
By Adam Taylor Washington Post

Following the lashing of blogger Raif Badawi and leaked footage that showed the public execution of a woman accused of beating her daughter, Saudi Arabia's harsh interpretation of sharia law and its use of capital punishment have come under international scrutiny.

For many, the Saudi justice system sounds not unlike that of the Islamic State, the extremist Islamist group which has struck fear in much of the Middle East.

This week, Middle East Eye, a Web site that focuses on news from the region and is frequently critical of Saudi Arabia, contrasted a set of legal punishments recently announced by the Islamic State with the corresponding punishments in Saudi Arabia.



While Saudi Arabia isn't particularly forthcoming about its use of capital punishment (and Middle East Eye doesn't cite its source) and accurate information from within the Islamic State's self-proclaimed caliphate is hard to ascertain, information from news sources and human rights organizations suggest the chart is at least broadly accurate.

One key difference between the Islamic State and Saudi Arabia, of course, is that the latter is a key U.S. ally in the region – and a member of the U.S.-led coalition fighting the Islamic State. Some experts argue that the fundamentalist brand of Islam practiced by both has theological links, however, and Riyadh's recent crackdown has been interpreted as an act of appeasement for Saudi hard-liners.

Saudi Arabia's own concern about the Islamic State is likely genuine (plans to build an enormous wall along its border with Iraq are a good sign of that), but for many Americans, the extremist group's rise is also bringing with it a renewed skepticism about American allies in the region.

Obama’s National Field Director Running Anti-Netanyahu Election Campaign

January 26, 2015 by Daniel Greenfield
www.frontpagemag.com

When the media whines about how Netanyahu is undermining Obama, remember that Obama’s people are running a direct anti-Netanyahu election campaign in Israel. Exactly the way that Clinton’s people did.




Haaretz reporter Roy (Chicky) Arad revealed in an article in the Hebrew edition today that the foreign funded organization, “One Voice”, is bankrolling the V-2015 campaign to defeat Binyamin Netanyahu’s national camp in the March 2015 Knesset Elections.

One indication of the generous financing is that it has now flown in a team of five American campaign experts (including Jeremy Bird, the Obama campaign’s national field director) who will run the campaign out of offices taking up the ground floor of a Tel Aviv office building.

V-2015 is careful not to support a specific party – rather “just not Bibi”. As such, the foreign funds pouring into the campaign are not subject to Israel’s campaign finance laws.

Jeremy Bird is as Obama as it gets.

He’s a Harvard trained community organizer who was Obama’s Deputy National Field Director in ’08 and his National Field Director in ’12. He was the Deputy Director of Organizing for America and is now working for Ready for Hillary.

One Voice’s partners include the State Department and the European Commission.

UPDATE: A version of the Haaretz piece by Roy (Chicky) Arad has come out in English.


With the help of American money and a former campaign adviser to President Barack Obama, V15 is trying to replace Israel’s government. The money and organization comes from V15’s partnership with OneVoice…



OneVoice is expected to merge with V15 before the March 17 election. The groups have a common goal: To recruit tens of thousands of volunteers for house-to-house canvassing, knocking on anywhere between 150,000 and 1 million doors — a method that was effective in Obama’s first presidential campaign, in particular.

Their secret campaign weapon is Jeremy Bird, a 36-year-old American political strategist who worked for Obama. Bird has come with a team of four consultants that will try to channel the energies of V15 into an organized methodology…

Israel is an ideal country for a door-knocking campaign because of its relatively small size, Bird says.

March 5, 2015
Steyn on Bibi 'mansplaining' Iran to Obama
By Rick Moran

Some particularly sharp zingers in this Mark Steyn entry on his blog, where he contrasts the words of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu with the "gaseous pap" uttered by the president.

A sample:

But, if this was "mansplaining", it was a big man doing the 'splaining. The shout-out to Harry Reid, the "my long-time friend John Kerry" schmoozeroo, all this was brilliant - not because everyone doesn't understand how fake it is, but because the transparent fakery underlines how easy it is to be big and generous and magnaninmous and get the snippy parochial stuff out of the way to concentrate on what really matters.

Obama could have done this. He could have said yesterday, "Hey, my good friend Bibi and I don't see eye to eye on everything, but I'd have to be an awfully thin-skinned insecure narcissistic little dweeb to make that a capital offense, wouldn't I? So, since he's in town anyway, I've asked him to swing by the White House for an hour to shoot the breeze - and maybe we can have that dinner we missed out on the last time, right, Prime Minister? Hur-hur-hur."

In loosing off all the phony-baloney bipartisan crapola, Netanyahu reminded us how easy it is to play the game, and how small and petty Obama is by comparison. And then, without ever saying it directly, he went on to lay out (or, if you're as touchy as Mother Jones, "mansplain") how pathetic it is to be that small and petty at this tide in the affairs of man.

Mother Jones is right to that extent: it was a man's speech, delivered at times with oblique but intentional Churchillian flourishes - "some change, some moderation," as he said of Rouhani's Iran.

Netanyahu was especially strong on the mullahs' expansionism. He pointed out that Iran now controls four regional capitals - Damascus, Beirut, Baghdad and Sana'a. The P5+1 negotiatiors talk about Iran "re-joining the community of nations". Au contraire, a not insignificant number of the community of nations have joined Iran. How many more capitals would a nuclear Teheran be exercising control of?

As for the other rising hegemon - the Islamic State, now attracting regional terror partners from West Africa to the Caucasus - Netanyahu cautioned against making the usual assumptions. In this case, he said, the enemy of your enemy is your enemy.

Read the whole delicious thing.

March 7, 2015
Justice Department leaks investigation of Sen. Menendez after he publicly opposes Obama Iran policy
By Thomas Lifson

You could say that the Chicago way met the New Jersey way yesterday, as the Obama administration moved to neutralize a critic who stands in the way of its Iran policy (which seems to be ensuring that the mullahs get their apocalypse-seeking hands on nuclear weapons). In an administration that abhors leaks, CNN was given the story that Senator Robert Menendez (D-NJ) is going to be charged with criminal corruption, just days after he prominently opposed the Obama administration on its Iran policy and supported Obama’s bête noir, Bibi Netanyahu.

The Justice Department is preparing to bring criminal corruption charges against Sen. Robert Menendez, a New Jersey Democrat, alleging he used his Senate office to push the business interests of a Democratic donor and friend in exchange for gifts.

People briefed on the case say Attorney General Eric Holder has signed off on prosecutors' request to proceed with charges, CNN first reported. An announcement could come within weeks. Prosecutors are under pressure in part because of the statute of limitation on some of the allegations.

With no specific charges to respond to, Sen. Menendez is unable to defend himself, except in general terms. But now, a cloud hangs over him, casting a shadow on his veracity and weakening his ability to oppose Obama.

New Jersey is not the home of good government squeaky-clean politics, to say the least. Charging corruption in a Jersey pol raises few eyebrows. But then again, Chicago, the president’s adopted hometown, is no slouch in that department, either. But Chicago is also the home of the legendary “Chicago way,” bringing a gun to a knife fight. In this instance, the gun is the Department of Justice’s ability to impugn an Obama foe, and eventually tie that person up in lengthy and expensive court ptoceedings.

Menendez seems to have realized there would be payback. Bridget Johnson writes at PJM:

Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.) foreshadowed today’s news that the Department of Justice is preparing corruption charges against him by hinting to AIPAC that his political enemies would try to “break” him for his resolve on Iran sanctions.

(Video of his speech is here.)

For those who are not up to date on Menendez’s thorn-in-the-side status, below is a montage of clips of him opposing Obama’s foreign policy.



I have no knowledge or opinion in Senator Menendez’s guilt or innocence. But I do have a strong opinion that this leak stinks.

White House Tweets Attack on Bibi Using Noted Plagiarist




BY: Daniel Bassali
March 6, 2015

The White House used an article written by a known plagiarist to attack the credibility of the leader of America’s closest ally in the Middle East.

Even though the president insisted the U.S. and Israel were strong, the White House National Security tweeted “Interesting take from @FareedZakaria on why PM Netanyahu’s predictions on #Iran have been wrong for 25 years,” and included a link to the article.

In a stunningly political and petty move, the White House essentially accused Prime Minister Netanyahu of fear mongering for more than two decades.

The White House’s use of Zakaria raises red flags. CNN and Time magazine suspended the embattled pundit and editor for plagiarism on a gun control article he wrote in 2012. He was accused, again, of plagiarism in August 2014. Afterwards, Our Bad Media delivered a crushing report detailing 26 examples of Zakaria continuously plagiarizing in dozens of episodes of his CNN show by ripping off other sources.

Beyond credibility as a journalist, it was foolish for the White House to use Zakarie because he has been a puppet of the Obama administration since Obama came into the national fold in 2007.

Zakaria has long been an outspoken Obama backer. In 2008, in an interview with Playboy magazine, Zakaria even went so far as to say Obama is never wrong about anything.

“I think he’s right about every issue he’s been criticized on,” Zakaria said.

Even the left-leaning Salon bashed Zakaria for his “neoliberal know-it-all-ism.”

The article itself also took a number of cheap shots at Netanyahu.

“When describing the alternative to it (Iran deal), Netanyahu entered never-never land, painting a scenario utterly divorced from reality,” Zakaria wrote.

Zakaria mocked the Prime Minister by comparing his “wishful thinking” to Peter Pan in his article.

Une chretienne de Bethlehem s'est exprimee sur le sort des Chretiens de Palestine en 2014. A ecouter car ce qu'elle raconte n'a jamais eu la chance d'etre repris par les medias habituels. Il s'agit de Christis Anastas.

SCANDAL !!

Source: Senate panel probing ‎possible Obama administration ties to anti-Netanyahu effort
By Steven Edwards

Did taxpayer money fund anti-Netanyahu push?

A powerful U.S. Senate investigatory committee has launched a bipartisan probe into an American nonprofit’s funding of efforts to oust Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu after the Obama administration’s State Department gave the nonprofit taxpayer-funded grants, a source with knowledge of the panel's activities told FoxNews.com.

The fact that both Democratic and Republican sides of the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations have signed off on the probe could be seen as a rebuke to President Obama, who has had a well-documented adversarial relationship with the Israeli leader.


The development comes as Netanyahu told Israel’s Channel Two television station this week that there were “governments” that wanted to help with the “Just Not Bibi” campaigning -- Bibi being the Israeli leader’s nickname.

It also follows a FoxNews.com report on claims the Obama administration has been meddling in the Israeli election on behalf of groups hostile to Netanyahu. A spokesperson for Sen. Rob Portman, Ohio Republican and chairman of the committee, declined comment, and aides to ranking Democratic Sen. Claire McCaskill, of Missouri, did not immediately return calls.

The Senate subcommittee, which has subpoena power, is the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs’ chief investigative body with jurisdiction over all branches of government operations and compliance with laws.

March 15, 2015
Why it's always Israel's fault
By Jerold Levoritz

How close to a victim do you have to be to mourn him? When thousands of people die in a flood in China or Bangladesh, Americans do not cry for them, though official condolences are sent. When 200,000 Syrians die in a civil war, almost no one in America becomes hysterical. Boko Haram’s abduction of 200 schoolgirls was noticed around the world -- for a moment. The slaughter of the Tutsis in Rwanda was not called “genocide” so America would not appear callous and crude by failing to react to the butchery. All these people were faceless and thus dehumanized so their loss did not have to arouse lingering sadness or calls for action. As Stalin said, one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.

Even when violence occurs closer to home here in America, it is the rarity of the event or its dastardly nature that elicits an emotional response. Twenty-six kindergarten children here, eleven movie-goers there! Those are the events that pull at our heartstrings, as we thank Whoever that it was not us. But at least some gut-wrenching mourning for these American victims did indeed arise from the people thanks to identification with those killed and extensive mass media coverage.

In Israel things are different because of the small town quality of the country. When three youngsters were kidnapped and murdered in Judea in the summer of 2014, the entire nation convulsed. The army quickly announced that it needed Israeli citizens who were familiar with the area around Hebron to volunteer for the search. Some did so, leaving their homes and jobs for this intrinsically dangerous task. The bodies of the boys were found and were buried together in a shared grave with eulogies from the graveside being broadcast live on ordinary news outlets. At each home, the seven‑day mourning period was attended by politicians and complete strangers. The boy’s faces were universally recognized within the country and remain so today. The mothers, now tied together by the tragedy they shared, have been speaking all over both the Jewish and non-Jewish worlds for the cause of peace. Money has been donated to memorialize the victims so that good deeds could be performed in their memory and so that worthy projects could be established in their names. The victims will be remembered for many years and meetings will be held at the anniversary of their deaths for the next decade or longer.

There is practical value to Israel’s strong emotional reactions to the murder and maiming of its citizens. Violence perpetrated against all Israelis is actually lessened over the long run by Israel’s extreme sensitivity to these sporadic losses. Police and military forces take almost immediate and very directed action to locate the victims or bring in the perpetrators of the atrocity. Occasionally, limited Arab attacks have resulted in full-scale conflicts within hours or days. Israel’s last battles with Hezb’Allah in Lebanon resulted from the kidnapping of three soldiers. Such rapid and sharp reactions prevent wars of attrition that can drag out over years. Attrition takes more lives and causes more pain than sharp but limited wars, known in Israel as “mowing the lawn.”

Moreover, sharp reactions support feelings of cathartic revenge. Revenge is underrated and denigrated in the post‑Christian Western world, but expected within unadulterated (or unmoderated) Muslim culture. Properly maintained expectations for Muslims allow the Israelis to persist within the world of Muslim honor- and shame‑driven societies. Quick reactions also permit Israelis to obtain some comfort in the deaths of their loved ones, because those left behind are able to say to themselves that many other lives were saved through their personal tragedies. The deaths of the three Israeli teenagers led to the 2014 summer’s full-scale conflict with Hamas in Gaza who took full responsibility for the boys’ abductions. By the time the conflict was over, the attack tunnels from Gaza into Israel had been discovered and destroyed so that much larger atrocities in the southern part of the country were averted. One such tunnel opened into Israel within a few hundred yards of a kindergarten, so the three Israeli teenagers can take credit in their deaths for saving the lives of the kindergarten children. This is not wishful thinking. Anyone who denies this chain of causality is lying to themselves and others.

It is this unusual sensitivity to death that encourages others to blame Israel for the violence in the Middle East. If the Israeli public were not washed in the personal histories of each deceased individual through the written media, as well as radio and television broadcasts, anger would subside much quicker and calls for proper measures to prevent future attacks would be muted sooner.

Here is a quintessential example of a contrasting attitude: When Saeb Erekat, a representative of the Palestinian Authority, commented on the slaughter of the boys, he said something to the effect that ‘three people died and everyone gets so upset’! Apparently, he believes that unless you gave birth to that now-dead individual, you have no reasonable need to mourn him. Perhaps not even then! Erekat is, of course, mostly mirroring the values of his society – Muslim and Leftist. The worth of a single human life can be extoled, ignored or demeaned. He chose the avenue of diminution, someplace between ignored and demeaned. It is a matter of choice. But his view has further implications. If the deaths of three youngsters were unimportant, the deaths of any individual or any number of individuals are equally unimportant. To Leftists humanity is ostensibly important, but an individual’s life, not so much or not at all, depending upon the sect of Leftist outlook from which one hails. To a subgroup of Muslims, dying while taking the lives of the enemy is called martyrdom, an exalted act. It is a great strategy for success in war, but not very good for the survival of the individual.

“Choosing life,” is more complicated, but a realistic alternative, as these three grieving mothers have shown. “Choosing life” is not defined as touting personal survival; it emanates rather from the veneration of individual worth. The choice between Erekat’s banal approach to death or that of the three mothers’ vital responses is so fundamentally important that they cannot fail to have different outcomes for humanity as a whole.

In contrast, the Jews seem quite driven to “choose life.” It is a different culture, perhaps even a social‑religious obligation imposed upon them by the God of history. When the Jews entered Israel, the Book of Joshua reports that in accordance with the dramatic commandment of Moses in Deuteronomy, half the Jews stood in front of Mt. Eval and half at the foot of Mt. Greizim where they were abjured to “choose life.” To my knowledge, no other group of people has ever had to swear en masse to ‘choose life’. How strange that must have been!

But there have been negative consequences to this obsession with life. It is perhaps through the force of that original commandment that the Jews have become the faulty party in all confrontations in Israel. Long after the violent death of an individual, the public mourning goes on ad libitum. Anti‑Semites know it is the Jews’ irritable over‑reactions to death that make them responsible for any current conflicts and all others to which they were party in the past or will be party to in the future. The mechanism underpinning this belief is “Jews believe that Jewish lives are so much more important than other lives.” Such people get tired of hearing about the Holocaust and may openly resent or deny it. Every anti-Semite concerned with matters in the Middle East knows as well that the Jews’ sensitivity to loss interferes with a final solution to the problems there. If the Jews would just have the sense to lie down and shut up, death could again take on its more limited, less emotional meaning and its effects in the political realm could be minimized to the point that it was again just a matter of business. What in Netanyahu’s speech to Congress has most frightened worldly and important people was his insistence that he really and honestly and fervently meant “Never Again.”

The Premier Ministre de L'Inde felicite Natanyahu en Hebreu.




Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi was one of several diplomats and officials from around the world sending Netanyahu their well wishes.
india

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi congratulated Prime Minister Netanyahu in Hebrew following the Likud party's success in the elections.

In a post from Modi's twitter account, he wrote in Hebrew "Mazel tov, my friend Bibi @Netanyahu. I remember our meeting in New York last September warmly," followed by a an English translation in a separate tweet.


Modi was one of several diplomats from around the world sending their well wishes to Netanyahu.

US Representative Nancy Pelosi said she respected the results of Israel's election. "I think that what they have produced will be a continued lively discussion about the peace process."

Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper congratulated Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on his re-election. "I congratulate PM Netanyahu on his election results. We look fwd to working w/ the gov't once formed. Israel has no greater friend than Cda."

"Prime Minister Netanyahu has been an extraordinary leader for Israel, and I congratulate him on what appears to be a victory," Republican Senator Ted Cruz wrote on Wednesday.

"His electoral success is all the more impressive given the powerful forces that tried to undermine him, including, sadly, the full weight of the Obama political team," Cruz added.

As of Wednesday evening, 99 percent of the ballots had been counted.

In call, Obama tells Netanyahu he will reassess US policy on Mideast peace

Days after Netanyahu's victory, US President Obama calls him.

[www.jpost.com]

Un clip incroyable et qui, tout simplement, dit tout de la situation.

Un palestinien dévoile la vérité sur le Hamas. Mudar Zahran "Le Hamas tue mon peuple !"

Malheureusement, la personne qui a fait les sous-titres soit comprend mal l'anglais, soit en a profité pour faire de la désinformation, j'ai relevé deux erreurs très graves.

1. Il parle de "settlements", des implantations, les sous-titres parlent de colonies. 'P(^

2. Il dit que la Jordanie devait être créée sur 78 % du territoire, et Israël sur 22 %, les sous-titres disent que les Palestiniens devaient obtenir 78 % de la Jordanie. (*%

QUEL ARTICLE ! Y a-t-il une ame charitable qui pourrait le traduire ? svp


JUST FIVE MORE HOURS LEFT TO THE FAST.



By Dov Fischer

Besides being an attorney and law professor, I also have been a rabbi for more than thirty years. Almost every Yom Kippur and Tish’a B’Av -- Judaism’s two 25-hour-long fast days -- I see congregants looking at their watches or the clock (and, on Tisha B’Av, at their smart phones) as the fast day wanes on. They are the ones who are beginning to suffer headaches, perhaps nausea, or -- worse -- migraines. They come to me, 19 or 20 hours into the fast, and ask the ultimate theological question: “Rabbi, how many hours are left to the fast?”
When we Orthodox Jews fast, man, do we fast — no food and no water. None of this “I-am-fasting-so-I-only-drink-juice” baloney. When we fast, we do it full-court-press. And the result, for some, is that the head swoons a bit, and other discomforts hit as we pass the three-quarters mark. But we always make it to the end of the fast day. We know that water and other beverages are just around the bend. And bagels and lox in their wake. Just five more hours left to the fast.
That is how all Americans now should view Obama. Only five more hours left to the fast. He has wreaked more damage on America, and on the world, often through incompetent interventionist policies and equally often through incredibly incompetent inaction, than has any American president before him. He never was qualified to get the job, and -- remarkably -- he somehow never grew while in the job. He rose in American politics without any executive experience, lacked world affairs experience, and had served only very briefly in the United States Senate, doing limited legislative work and leveraging his very brief time there to focus primarily on running for president. He ran for president at a perfect time for him -- facing the weakest of Republican presidential candidates, John McCain, and an American economy that was in utter collapse amid his campaign. So everyone wanted a change, and he slipped in, with the famous proclamation that this would be the day that the oceans stopped rising and the earth healed.
Suddenly we had a narcissistic incompetent, a vindictive and petty megalomaniac who surrounded himself at one famous public speech with Greek or Roman columns on either side, like an emperor addressing his empire. And the world’s liberals and bleeding hearts lapped it up. Historians will scratch their heads a century from now as they try determining how Obama got awarded the Nobel peace prize practically on the day he was elected. Americans will remember the president who left his post to shower the International Olympic Committee with his awe, expecting them to respond by awarding the Olympic games to Chicago. He lost that one, as he has lost every single negotiation in which he has engaged with foreign sources.
He does not know how to negotiate. He opened America’s relations with Cuba -- a thoroughly defensible political decision half a century after tensions with Havana reached a boiling point during the Cuban Missile Crisis -- but he got nothing in return for it. He pulled back Poland’s and Czechoslovakia’s ability to defend themselves from Russian aerial aggression without gaining a reset with Vladimir Putin. He announced to the Taliban that we would be withdrawing soon unilaterally from Afghanistan, and he announced that all the gains America had achieved in quieting Iraq, after the “Surge” urged by Sen. McCain and overseen by Gen. David Petraeus had succeeded, would be abandoned by a complete American withdrawal. As ISIS emerged to fill the void in Iraq, he joked of them, calling them a mere “J.V.” — a junior varsity team of first- and second-year students, nothing serious, nothing to lose one’s head over.
On his watch, Putin has seized the Crimea and now makes territorial inroads in Ukraine, while opponents either get assassinated in front of the Kremlin or get imprisoned for decades. On Obama’s watch, Egypt went from Mubarak to Morsi and the Moslem Brotherhood — in which Obama strangely rejoiced — until Gen. Al-Sisi miraculously rose to put down the Moslem Brotherhood, a development that initially saw Obama restrict American support for Egypt. On Obama’s watch, America remained silent as Iranians risked their lives in the streets to protest fraudulent elections and demand freedom. On Obama’s watch, Libya went from a crazy and deranged dictator who had slowed somewhat with age, to new crazy and deranged terrorists running wild, tearing up the country, murdering Westerners and assassinating an American ambassador in Benghazi. On Obama’s watch, Yemen now is in flames while China has gained control of 90 percent of militarily strategic rare-earth elements.
When our American ambassador in Benghazi was murdered, Obama and Hillary Clinton -- the latter another blight, though far less appealing to American voters -- tried a ploy to shift blame for their own incompetence and mismanagement to a schlemazel (guy with bad luck) who had posted a dopey 10-minute film on Youtube that was disrespectful to the Mohammed of the Koran. It was a pathetically bad film, with maybe 300 views and four “likes,” and virtually no one had seen it. So Obama, Clinton, and their staff put out the word that the murder of the American ambassador in Benghazi, actually timed to coincide with the eleventh anniversary of the September 11 World Trade Center tragedy, was the result of the insignificant Youtube video. They sent out Susan Rice, a remarkably unqualified political amateur whom they had elevated to America’s United Nations ambassador and who now fittingly is Obama’s National Security Advisor, to go on one television talk show after another, blaming the massacre in Benghazi on the ten-minute Youtube video. They even arrested Nakoula Nakoula (aka Sam Bacile), the maker of the video -- as they now are moving to arrest United States Sen. Robert Menendez of New Jersey, who has opposed Obama on both his Cuba giveaway and on Obama’s now trying to give away Israel.
Even with America’s friends, Obama is an embarrassment. In South Africa at the somber memorial for Nelson Mandela, Obama was taking selfies with Angela Merkel. When he visited England, he gave Queen Elizabeth an iPod and Prime Minister Gordon Brown a box of 25 movies DVDs, a gift the London Telegraph described as “exciting as a pair of socks.” After notably missing the mass march in Paris after the Charlie Hebdo massacre, he sent John Kerry to France with folksinger James Taylor to sing “You’ve Got a Friend.” And then, of course, Israel.
It is important to remember that 6 years and two months have passed since Obama’s first inauguration. More than three-quarters of his maximum eight-year term are done. Only 22 months to go. Only five hours left to the fast. These will be a painful 22 months, as the last five hours of the fast always are. He has done so much damage already, to all of us, including his supporters, who have him to thank for their lost jobs, frozen wages, and forced healthcare options that compel them to pay for Sandra Fluke’s bed time, and there is so much more damage yet to be wreaked. But, on the other hand, as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has demonstrated, we all “have his number” now. He no longer fools us with sweet promises he will not keep. We know he wants to destroy America’s oil industry, so that industry now is conducting hydraulic fracking on private lands that he cannot control. The Congress knows how his Internal Revenue Service targeted political conservatives for harassment, how his Justice Department under Eric Holder became a tool of politics that has fanned racial tensions in a country where race no longer is a factor in people’s everyday decisions, that he has no intention of securing America’ southern border but instead plots to add 11 million votes and then to force them to vote. We all have him figured out now. The voters know him well enough to surround him on both sides with both a Republican Senate and a Republican House of Representatives, augmented with an overwhelming array of Republican governors.
Little by little, his power and authority is being reined in. He is a lame duck from whom many in his own Democrat Party are shirking and withdrawing, even as he quacks ever louder as his oceans recede and ponds recede. We just need to be strong a bit longer. Not to give in to the temptation to buckle, not to snack and not to drink. Just five more hours left to the fast. The tea and coffee, bagels and lox, are just around the corner. We can do it.
We always have.

Read more: [www.americanthinker.com]

Un clip en anglais a voir et ecouter. Terrible



[video.foxnews.com]

I thought you might enjoy this song with an historical twist.

Somewhere over the Rainbow

Some may not know this story about the song, "Somewhere over the Rainbow"
At the 2014 Oscars, they celebrated the 75th anniversary of the release of the "Wizard of Oz" by having Pink sing "Somewhere Over the Rainbow", with highlights from the film in the background. But what few people realized, while listening to that incredible performer singing that unforgettable song, is that the music is deeply embedded in the Jewish experience.
It is no accident, for example, that the greatest Christmas songs of all time were written by Jews. For example, "Rudolph, the Red-Nosed Reindeer" was written by Johnny Marks and "White Christmas" was penned by a Jewish liturgical singer's (cantor) son, Irving Berlin.
But perhaps the most poignant song emerging out of the mass exodus from Europe was "Somewhere Over the Rainbow". The lyrics were written by Yip Harburg. He was the youngest of four children born to Russian Jewish immigrants. His real name was Isidore Hochberg and he grew up in a Yiddish speaking, Orthodox Jewish home in New York. The music was written by Harold Arlen, a cantor's son. His real name was Hyman Arluck and his parents were from Lithuania.
Together, Hochberg and Arluck wrote "Somewhere Over the Rainbow", which was voted the 20th century's number one song by the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA).
In writing it, the two men reached deep into their immigrant Jewish consciousness - framed by the pogroms of the past and the Holocaust about to happen - and wrote an unforgettable melody set to near prophetic words.
Read the lyrics in their Jewish context and suddenly the words are no longer about wizards and Oz, but about Jewish survival:
Somewhere over the rainbow Way up high, There's a land that I heard of Once in a lullaby. Somewhere over the rainbow Skies are blue, And the dreams that you dare to dream Really do come true.
Someday I'll wish upon a star And wake up where the clouds are far behind me. Where troubles melt like lemon drops Away above the chimney tops
That's where you'll find me. Somewhere over the rainbow Bluebirds fly.
Birds fly over the rainbow. Why then, oh why can't I? If happy little bluebirds fly Beyond the rainbow Why, oh why can't I?
The Jews of Europe could not fly. They could not escape beyond the rainbow. Harburg was almost prescient when he talked about wanting to fly like a bluebird away from the "chimney tops". In the post-Auschwitz era, chimney tops have taken on a whole different meaning than the one they had at the beginning of 1939.
--Pink's mom is Judith Kugel. She's Jewish of Lithuanian background. As Pink was belting the Harburg/Arlen song from the stage at the Academy Awards, I wasn't thinking about the movie. I was thinking about Europe's lost Jews and the immigrants to America.
I was then struck by the irony that for two thousand years the land that the Jews heard of "once in a lullaby" was not America, but Israel. The remarkable thing would be that less than ten years after "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" was first published, the exile was over and the State of Israel was reborn. Perhaps the "dreams that you dare to dream really do come true".