Powered By Blogger

Sunday, January 25, 2015

White House going nuclear on Netanyahu


by Michael Goodwin
Thou shall not cross Dear Leader.
With their gutter sniping failing to stop Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s planned March speech before Congress, White House aides are unloading their full arsenal of bile.
“He spat in our face publicly, and that’s no way to behave,” one Obama aide told an Israeli newspaper. “Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price.”
It is pointless to say petty threats do not become the Oval Office. Trying to instruct this White House on manners recalls what Mark Twain said about trying to teach a pig to sing: It wastes your time and annoys the pig.
Still, the fury is telling. It reminds, as if we could forget, that everything is always about Obama.
How dare Israel be more concerned with the existential threat of Iranian nukes than with Obama’s feelings? And what do members of Congress think they are, a separate branch of government or something?
Yes, the presidency deserves respect, even when the president doesn’t. Although Obama routinely ignores lawmakers and their role in our constitutional system of checks and balances, there is an argument afoot that Congress should have taken the high road and consulted him before inviting Netanyahu.
The argument has a point — but not a compelling one. To give Obama veto power over the visit would be to put protocol and his pride before the most important issue in the world.
Modal Trigger
Photo: AP
That is Iran’s march to nuclear weapons, and Obama’s foolish complicity. His claim at the State of the Union that “we’ve halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material” would be laughable if it weren’t so dangerous. The claim earned him three ­Pinocchios, with four being an outright whopper, by The Washington Post.
Outside the president’s yes-men circle, nobody believes the mad mullahs will voluntarily give up their quest for the bomb. International sanctions made life difficult for the regime, especially with oil prices cratering, but Obama ­relaxed restrictions with nothing to show for it except negotiations where he keeps bidding against himself.
He is desperate for a deal, and the Iranians know it, so they want to keep talking. They are gaining concessions and buying time, which means a reversal of their weapons program becomes much harder to achieve.
The ticking doomsday clock is what led to the remarkable comments by Democrat Robert ­Menendez. After Obama warned that more sanctions, even if they would not take effect unless the talks collapsed, could scare off the Iranians, the New Jersey senator said Obama was repeating talking points that “come straight out of Tehran.”
That’s a zinger for the ages — and has the added advantage of being true.
Any deal that leaves Iran with a capacity to make a nuke in weeks or months will ignite a regional arms race. As I have noted, American military and intelligence officials believe a nuclear-armed Iran will lead to a nuclear exchange with Israel or Arab countries within five years.
Israel has the most to lose from an Iranian nuke, and ­Netanyahu can be expected to articulate a forceful argument against Obama’s disastrous course. That’s why House Speaker John Boehner invited him, and it’s why the president is so bent out of shape and refuses to meet with Netanyahu. He doesn’t want Americans to hear the other side.
But we must. And Congress must not shirk from its duty to demand a meaningful agreement with Iran, or none at all.
An extra layer of sanctions waiting in the wings is good backup, but another pending bill is more important. It would demand that any agreement come before the Senate for a vote.
Naturally, Obama opposes it, but that’s all the more reason why it is needed. As Ronald Reagan famously said about Soviet promises, “Trust but verify.”
So must it be with Iran and, sadly, our own president.

Tipping off the enemy

front-page story in The Wall Street Journal is a stunner — for all the wrong reasons. Under the headline, “US, Iraq Set Sights on Mosul Offensive,” it lays out plans for a summer attack against Islamic State, including the locations and numbers of allied Kurdish fighters and which Iraqi units will lead the charge.
Most shocking, the source is Gen. Lloyd Austin, the top American commander in the Middle East. He told the Journal US ground troops might be involved and that the military “would do what it takes.”
What the hell is going on? Since when does the military give the public, and the enemy, advance notice of battle plans? Has Gen. Austin lost his mind?
This is nuts.

The incredible moment a blind mom is able to see her newborn baby son for the very first time using special high-tech glasses

kathy beitz

Kathy Beitz, 29, from Guelph, Ontario, who is blind was able to use a device that allowed her to see her baby just hours after he was born.
In a YouTube video, that is quickly going viral, she gasps and says 'Oh my god!' as she holds baby Aksel in her hospital bed for the first time.
'Look at his long toes,' she says. 'I think he looks like us.'

Ms. Beitz was diagnosed with Stargardt disease, a genetic condition that causes macular degeneration, when she was 11. 

While she now has some peripheral vision, she developed a blind spot in the centre of her field of vision and is legally blind. 
The special glasses developed by the firm eSight is equipped with a video camera from which the images are enhanced and projected onto high definition screens in front of the eyes.
 About 140 people have eSight glasses in North America,

The wearer can then adjust the contrast, brightness and shadow to make things easier to see. 
'Their eyes actually perceive more when they look at the screen than they can with their natural eyesight,' said Taylor West, a spokesman for eSight to CBC
'For the first baby that I get to actually look at being my own is very overwhelming,' she told the camera. 
'The moment I got the glasses, I was very ready to put them on,' said Ms Beitz. 'I got to see that he had my husband's feet and toes, and I got to see that he had my lips.
'My husband and I got to have the family experience of looking at our brand new baby, and bonding with him and falling in love with him.' 
The glasses have changed her life profoundly. She said they make it much easier for her to care for the infant, go to the grocery store and complete other tasks that would otherwise be difficult. 


At a cost of $15,000, the device doesn't come cheap, however, the company has a fundraising department that helps people purchase the glasses.
The company is even trying to persuade insurers to make a contribution through healthcare plans. 
Ms. Beitz sister also suffers from Stargardt disease and now works for the company that developed the spectacles. 
She says she is forever grateful that her sister decided to purchase the glasses for her, although over time she will pay her back. 
A number of efforts are underway to help raise money for the device and include using crowdfunding. and a campaign based around Ms Beitz's story using the hash tag #MakeBlindnessHistory.
'Being a person with a disability who has two children of her own, she knew the struggles of being a legally blind or blind parent. So she was very adamant about getting the glasses for me and work with me to use them, so when I did have him, I got to experience everything that she didn't,' said Beitz.
'When I knew I was getting the glasses, I got very excited. I knew then I would be able to read books to the baby and be a part of that experience ... it gave a huge independence to my parenting skills.'


Why did Boehner really invite Netanyahu to address Congress? Hint: IRAN!

Iran has apparently produced an intercontinental ballistic missile whose range far exceeds the distance between Iran and Israel, and between Iran and Europe.

On Wednesday night, Channel 2 showed satellite imagery taken by Israel’s Eros-B satellite that was launched last April. The imagery showed new missile-related sites that Iran recently constructed just outside Tehran. One facility is a missile launch site, capable of sending a rocket into space or of firing an ICBM.

On the launch pad was a new 27-meter long missile, never seen before.

The missile and the launch pad indicate that Iran’s ballistic missile program, which is an integral part of its nuclear weapons program, is moving forward at full throttle. The expanded range of Iran’s ballistic missile program as indicated by the satellite imagery makes clear that its nuclear weapons program is not merely a threat to Israel, or to Israel and Europe. It is a direct threat to the United States as well.

Also on Wednesday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was invited to address a joint session of Congress by House Speaker John Boehner.

Boehner has asked Netanyahu to address US lawmakers on February 11 regarding Iran’s nuclear program and the threat to international security posed by radical Islam.

Opposition leaders were quick to accuse Boehner and the Republican Party of interfering in Israel’s upcoming election by providing Netanyahu with such a prestigious stage just five weeks before Israelis go to the polls.

Labor MK Nachman Shai told The Jerusalem Post that for the sake of fairness, Boehner should extend the same invitation to opposition leader Isaac Herzog.

But in protesting as they have, opposition members have missed the point. Boehner didn’t invite Netanyahu because he cares about Israel’s election. He invited Netanyahu because he cares about US national security. He believes that by having Netanyahu speak on the issues of Iran’s nuclear program and radical Islam, he will advance America’s national security.

Boehner’s chief concern, and that of the majority of his colleagues from the Democratic and Republican parties alike, is that President Barack Obama’s policy in regard to Iran’s nuclear weapons program imperils the US. Just as the invitation to Netanyahu was a bipartisan invitation, so concerns about Obama’s policy toward Iran’s nuclear program are bipartisan concerns.

Over the past week in particular, Obama has adopted a position on Iran that puts him far beyond the mainstream of US politics. This radical position has placed the president on a collision course with Congress best expressed on Wednesday by Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez. 


During a hearing at the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee where Menendez serves as ranking Democratic member, he said, “The more I hear from the administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran.”
Menendez was referring to threats that Obama has made three times over the past week, most prominently at his State of the Union address on Tuesday, to veto any sanctions legislation against Iran brought to his desk for signature.

He has cast proponents of sanctions – and Menendez is the co-sponsor of a pending sanctions bill – as enemies of a diplomatic strategy of dealing with Iran, and by implication, as warmongers.

Indeed, in remarks to the Democratic members of the Senate last week, Obama impugned the motivations of lawmakers who support further sanctions legislation. He indirectly alleged that they were being forced to take their positions due to pressure from their donors and others.

The problem for American lawmakers is that the diplomatic course that Obama has chosen makes it impossible for the US to use the tools of diplomacy to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.

That course of diplomatic action is anchored in the Joint Plan of Action that the US and its partners Germany, France, Britain, China and Russia (the P5+1) signed with Tehran in November 2013.

The JPOA placed no limitation on Iran’s ballistic missile program. The main areas the JPOA covers are Iran’s uranium enrichment and plutonium reactor activities. Under the agreement, or the aspects of it that Obama has made public, Iran is supposed to limit its enrichment of uranium to 3.5-percent purity.

And it is not supposed to take action to expand its heavy water reactor at Arak, which could be used to develop weapons grade plutonium.

THE JPOA is also supposed to force Iran to share all nuclear activities undertaken in the past by its military personnel.

During his State of the Union address, Obama claimed that since the agreement was signed, Iran has “halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material.”

Yet as Omri Ceren of the Israel Project noted this week, since the JPOA was signed, Iran has expanded its uranium and plutonium work. And as the Eros-B satellite imagery demonstrated, Iran is poised to launch an ICBM.

When it signed the JPOA, Obama administration officials dismissed concerns that by permitting Iran to enrich uranium to 3.5% – in breach of binding UN Security Council Resolution 1929 from 2010 – the US was enabling Iran to develop nuclear weapons. Enrichment to 3.5%, they said, is a far cry from the 90% enrichment level needed for uranium to be bomb grade.

But it works out that the distance isn’t all that great. Sixty percent of the work required to enrich uranium to bomb grade levels of purity is done by enriching it to 3.5%. Since it signed the JPOA, Iran has enriched sufficient quantities of uranium to produce two nuclear bombs.

As for plutonium development work, as Ceren pointed out, the White House’s fact sheet on the JPOA said that Iran committed itself “to halt progress on its plutonium track.”

Last October, Foreign Policy magazine reported that Iran was violating that commitment by seeking to procure parts for its heavy water plutonium reactor at Arak. And yet, astoundingly, rather than acknowledge the simple fact that Iran was violating its commitment, the State Department excused Iran’s behavior and insisted that it was not in clear violation of its commitment.

More distressingly, since the JPOA was signed, Iran has repeatedly refused to allow the International Atomic Energy Agency to access Iran’s nuclear installations or to inform the IAEA about the nuclear activities that its military have carried out in the past.

As a consequence, the US and its partners still do not know what nuclear installations Iran has or what nuclear development work it has undertaken.

This means that if a nuclear agreement is signed between Iran and the P5+1, that agreement’s verification protocols will in all likelihood not apply to all aspects of Iran’s nuclear program. And if it does not apply to all aspects of Iran’s nuclear activities, it cannot prevent Iran from continuing the activities it doesn’t know about.

As David Albright, a former IAEA inspector, explained in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last May, “To be credible, a final agreement must ensure that any effort by Tehran to construct a bomb would be sufficiently time-consuming and detectable that the international community could act decisively to prevent Iran from succeeding. It is critical to know whether the Islamic Republic had a nuclear weapons program in the past, how far the work on warheads advanced and whether it continues. Without clear answers to these questions, outsiders will be unable to determine how fast the Iranian regime could construct either a crude nuclear-test device or a deliverable weapon if it chose to renege on an agreement.”

Concern about the loopholes in the JPOA led congressional leaders from both parties to begin work to pass additional sanctions against Iran immediately after the JPOA was concluded. To withstand congressional pressure, the Obama administration alternately attacked the patriotism of its critics, who it claimed were trying to push the US into and unnecessary war against Iran, and assured them that all of their concerns would be addressed in a final agreement.

Unfortunately, since signing the JPOA, the administration has adopted positions that ensure that none of Congress’s concerns will be addressed.

Whereas in early 2013, Secretary of State John Kerry declared that “the president has made it definitive” that Iran needs to answer all “questions surrounding Iran’s nuclear program,” last November it was reported that the US and its partners had walked back this requirement.

Iran will not be required to give full accounting of its past nuclear work, and so the US and its partners intend to sign a deal that will be unable to verify that Iran does not build nuclear weapons.

As the administration has ignored its previous pledges to Congress to ensure that a deal with Iran will make it possible to prevent it from acquiring nuclear weapons, it has also acted to ensure that Iran will pay no price for negotiating in bad faith. The sanctions bill that Obama threatens to veto would only go into effect if Iran fails to sign an agreement.

As long as negotiations progress, no sanctions would be enforced.

OBAMA’S MESSAGE then is clear. Not only will the diplomatic policy he has adopted not prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons (and the ability to attack the US with nuclear warheads attached to an ICBM), but in the event that Iran fails to agree to even cosmetic limitations on its nuclear progress, it will suffer no consequences for its recalcitrance.

And this brings us back to Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu.

With Obama’s diplomatic policy toward Iran enabling rather than preventing Iran from becoming a nuclear power, members of the House and Senate are seeking a credible, unwavering voice that offers an alternative path. For the past 20 years, Netanyahu has been the global leader most outspoken about the need to take all necessary measures to prevent Iran from becoming a nuclear power, not only for Israel’s benefit, but to protect the entire free world. From the perspective of the congressional leadership, then, inviting Netanyahu to speak was a logical move.

In the Israeli context, however, it was an astounding development. For the past generation, the Israeli Left has insisted Israel’s role on the world stage is that of a follower.

As a small, isolated nation, Israel has no choice, they say, other than to follow the lead of the West, and particularly of the White House, on all issues, even when the US president is wrong. All resistance to White House policies is dangerous and irresponsible, leaders like Herzog and Tzipi Livni continuously warn.

Boehner’s invitation to Netanyahu exposes the Left’s dogma as dangerous nonsense.

The role of an Israeli leader is to adopt the policies that protect Israel, even when they are unpopular at the White House. Far from being ostracized for those policies, such an Israeli leader will be supported, respected, and relied upon by those who share with him a concern for what truly matters.

caroline@carolineglick.com

FOX News Correspondents turning against Israel


All News outlets were always biased against Israel, only Fox News supported Israel..... No More!

The foolish gay news anchor Shepard Smith blasted Israel for building settlements on their very own land, and now Chris Wallace is blasting Netanyahu for accepting an invitation from Boehner to address the Joint Session of Congress!


Chris said that he doesn't like the fact that "Netanyahu is sneaking into the USA" to address congress...


Hey Chris... Netanyahu is not "sneaking" in...it seems that YOU know about it!

Hey Chris it is the role of an Israeli leader is to adopt the policies that protect Israel, even when they are unpopular at the White House.

Chris wallace just hates Netanyahu like the rest of the leftist loonies and doesn't want him re-elected!

 Fox News usually a staunch supporter of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, changed its tone on Friday when anchor Chris Wallace and host Shepard Smith expressed harsh criticism of the prime minister's decision to speak before the US Congress in March, without the prior arrangement of the White House and just a couple of weeks before the Israeli election.  

House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner extended the invitation to Netanyahu on Wednesday and the Prime Minister's speech on Capitol Hill is expected to focus on the need for increased sanctions against Iran, as well as on Islamist extremism.

The Fox news segment, on the show "Shepard Smith Reporting," began with a response to a quote from Martin Indyk from The New York Times on Thursday wherein the former US ambassador to Israel and the former US envoy to the peace process says: "Netanyahu is using the Republican Congress for a photo-op for his election campaign and the Republicans are using Bibi for their campaign against Obama...Unfortunately the US relationship will take the hit. It would be far wiser for us to stay out of their politics and for them to stay out of ours." 

Wallace said he agreed completely with Indyk and that he was "shocked" by the whole affair.  
  
Smith queried whether Netanyahu would back out of  the speech because, "Members of his own Mossad have come out and said this is a horrible idea and so have members of his own political party. Of course his political opponents are  screaming up and down, the newspapers over there are going wild over this," he added.  

"It just seems that they think we don't pay any attention and that we are just a bunch of complete morons, the US citizens, like we wouldn't pick up on what is happening here," Smith said. 

Wallace stressed  the importance placed on the relationship with the US across the Israeli political spectrum, and questioned the political advantage for Netanyahu of deciding to speak to Congress and sidestepping the US president.  

"For Netanyahu to do something that is going to be seen as a deliberate and a really egregious snub of President Obama, when Obama is going to be in power for the next year and three quarters, seems to me like a pretty risky political strategy for Prime Minister Netanyahu," Wallace said.  

"For Netanyahu to come here and side with Boehner against Obama on Iran seems to me like very dicey politics," he said.  

Wallace said that it was legitimate for Netanyahu to have different views on the Iranian threat than those held by Obama, but, he said, "For him to come here, to ignore the president, to not even let him know that he is coming, and to sneak in and come talk before Congress with the president's opponents who criticize the policy, that's a different thing." 

Shepard Smith is only bothered by "Israeli Settlements"


This past Friday, Shepard Smith of Fox Cable, asked Chris Wallace what the agenda of Chis Wallace's Sunday Show was. When Chris Wallace said that he would be discussing Netanyahu's acceptance of Boehner's invite for Netanyahu to address the Joint Session of Congress, Shepard Smith starting badgering Chris, "What about the settlements?" "Why can't they just stop building settlements?"
Settlements wasn't part of the discussion, but this lunitic kept bringing it up.

Hey Shepard, Israel can build in its own country just like the USA! 
It's a sovereign nation .... there isn't a country named Palestine... Hellloooo!

And why is it your business? Just report the damn news! 

Friday, January 23, 2015

Chasidishe "Tuna Beigel" Yoel Weiss still refuses to give his wife a Get!

The "Tuna Beigel" Yoel Weiss


Yoel Weiss, a Chassidishe "tuna beigel) (a term used for Chassidishe guys who want to be cool modern guys) still refuses to give his wife, Rivky Stein a get. Laughing like a crazed hyena in court, the tuna beigel, was told by  Judge Esther Morgenstern, "There's nothing funny here, I don't see any humor," 

This alleged "rasha me'rusha" (wicked) punched his wife, Rivky Stein, in the stomach while she was pregnant with child.

An Orthodox Jewish woman, desperate to obtain a religious divorce, broke down and sobbed on the witness stand Thursday as she accused her husband of raping and starving her.
“The night of the wedding, he made it clear that he owned me and that night he forced himself on me. I didn’t even know what happened. I felt stuck. I had nowhere to go back to,” testified Rivky Stein, 25, who was 18 when she married the then-26-year-old Yoel Weiss.
Stein also described in Brooklyn Supreme Court how she is currently entrapped by Weiss’ refusal to give her a “get” — a document allowing her to divorce under religious law — which would let her restart her life.
“[The get] enables me to move on with my life instead of being stuck and chained as I am now . . . [Without it] I can’t get remarried. I can’t date. I don’t have that hope for the future of the family I always wanted.”
Stein’s lawyer said that by withholding the get, Weiss is keeping Stein from ever remarrying and so he should support her “for the rest of her life.”
“The oppression of women by perverting religious principals is a story that is as old as time,” Michael Stutman, of the firm Mishcon de Reya, said in his opening statement in the civil case that will determine custody of the couple’s two children, child support and alimony for Stein.
Stein’s testimony cast a light on the normally cloistered Orthodox world, in which powerful rabbis exert ultimate control.
“There were two rabbis that I constantly went to about the abuse and bruises from Yoel,” Stein testified.
“I would ask them what I should do and if I had permission to call the police. They told me that I can’t. They wouldn’t give me permission to.”
Stein also claimed Weiss would punch her in the stomach when she was pregnant, locked her out of their home in the freezing cold, and didn’t give her and the children enough food.
Weiss chuckled throughout Stein’s testimony, causing Judge Esther Morgenstern to reprimand him.
“There’s nothing funny here. I don’t see any humor,” said the judge, who added she had difficulty obtaining her own get when her marriage dissolved in the late 1980s.
“To see him laugh it off, it was very painful. He still continues to abuse me by not giving me my get,” Stein told The Post outside court.
Morgenstern has pressured Weiss during the proceedings to give Stein the get.
Weiss’ attorney said in court there was no proof of any abuse.

Thursday, January 22, 2015

Are Gedoilim Today Misleading Chutz L'Aaretz Jews Again and advising them "to stay put in Europe?

Wasn't one of the reasons that Gedoilim didn't want Jews to leave Europe pre WW2, was because of the bad spiritual influence in the US and in the then Palestine?
And didn't those who defied the Rabbis survive and that those who listened, by in large perish?
And didn't the Babalonian Jews use that exact reason to Ezra HaSoifer and the Navi Nechamia?

Well, they are doing it again.... ???????????????
They are telling the French Jews to remain in France, even if it means getting slaughtered by the Islamists!

Wouldn't it be better if the Chareidim worked to get Olim to be frum....? Showing them by example?

Zionism is not just the restoration of the Jewish People to their historical homeland; it is the restoration of Judaism to its rightful place as the center of our national life. For too long Judaism was confined and shackled into the corner of most people’s lives; that dark, often ignored, space called religion. Zionism is the extraction of Judaism from its prison and the rescue of its values. It’s an opportunity to prove that religion is not irrelevant nor out of touch with the fundamental needs and concerns of the modern man.

Our Charedi brothers and sisters in the Land of Israel are in an unique position to help make this happen. They represent some of the most loyal Jews to Judaism and Jewish peoplehood. They are fully committed to Jewish education and have a birthrate that puts the Jewish secular and religious-Zionist camps to shame. The Charedim believe in the primacy of Torah, it is “their lives and the length of their days.” What they fail to understand is their responsibility to the rest of the people of Israel. By continuing their “siege mentality” the haredi world is disconnecting themselves from their fellow Jews and thus rendering the Torah they represent impotent.

No one is asking the Charedi public to abandon their values. Nor are they asking them to embrace secular life and culture. What they are asking for is an embrace of Jews who are different from them. An embrace of their fellow Jews is not an acceptance of a lifestyle they do not condone. What it does entail is affording the secular public the “right to be wrong.” After all, is that not the very same right that the secular majority has afforded them for close to seven decades now? An embrace of our fellow Jews is itself an extension of the same Torah values they hold so dear.

Our sages caution us that derech eretz kadma la-Torah, the way of the world precedes the Torah. We must first be part of the world before we can be part of Torah. If the Charedi world believes they have a mission to be a “light unto the nations” then they must become part of Israel beyond backroom politics securing budgets for their continued separatism.

Israel needs  Charedim.

In a generation in which we are beginning to question our rights to this land and our role as the Chosen People, the Charedim offer an unabashed narrative asserting our connection to the land and the special role the Jewish people play in history. 

But Charedim also need the Chilonim! They need Chilonim to provide the goods and services necessary to sustain the yeshivot and their way of life. They need Chilonim to provide the infrastructure that a state requires in the 21st century. They need the Chilonim as to serve as the utensil for the content they are producing.

Instead of rejecting from afar the state’s institutions as devoid of Torah, how about accepting the invitation to come and try to influence from within? I have no doubt that such an influence will be beneficial to all parties involved and will yield a true example of Jewish unity.
 




In a shiur given by Eida Chareidis Ravaad HaGaon HaRav Moshe Sternbuch Shlita on Wednesday, Rosh Chodesh Shevat, the rav addressed the recent acts of terrorism in France and the calls from Israeli government officials to French Jews to come to Israel. Rav Sternbuch stated that Israel is not safer, referring to the Jews from Yemen and their spiritual destruction in Israel, which he feels is likely to occur in the event of a mass aliyah from France.
Excerpts from the rav’s word, who spoke of the time when Israel wished to induct women, and the Brisker Rov, Rav Yoel of Satmar and other gedolim abroad waged a war against it. He explained there were those who opposed the gedolim for they felt they were showing the world the division between Jews, but the gedolim were undeterred for they realized they must fight the chilul Hashem as taught by the Shulchan Aruch and Rambam. Opponents were busy with the superficial adopted by the majority, those who clearly did not understand the how one is compelled to act.
“And in our times, the government sends emissaries to France to bring the French Jews here, to disperse them as they did with the Yemenite children who were taken from their homes and not even permitted to observe Yom Kippur. They were told in Eretz Yisrael one does not have to observe mitzvos and the same can happen today regarding French Jewry R”L and if we the rabbonim of Eretz Yisrael and the Diaspora do not proclaim publicly that it is forbidden for them to come to Israel until such time it is certain that they will be settled in chareidi areas and attend chareidi mosdos. We mustn’t be afraid at all of making such a declaration nor of a chilul Hashem. On the contrary, this is the true Kiddush Hashem, and the nations of the world will know we oppose the aliyah of French Jewry to Eretz Yisrael, for they will be tricked here, and this has been proven that there is no difference between Eretz Yisrael and France for in Eretz Yisrael today, a terror attacked occurred on a bus.

“HaGaon HaTzaddik Rav Moshe Schneider ZT”L told me that when they wanted to come from Germany, the Jewish Agency refused to give permits, telling them youths have priority for aliyah so they may live here as opposed to the elderly… My rebbe and teacher responded to them harshly, telling them their words are nonsense – the opposite for the young are free of Torah and Mitzvos when they come to Israel and they are already dead for the wicked are referred to as dead in their lifetime, but we who come to Eretz Yisrael to serve Hashem and dedicate our lives to this service, we are living and will never die for our good deeds will stand forever. But the young, the free, have died some time ago.

והרי הם שולחים “מתים” ממש לארץ ישראל”.


Amid Threats, Jewish Blogger Returns to Brandeis

Did Brandeis student Daniel Mael’s right-wing, pro-Israel politics play a role in backlash against him?
Daniel Mael
When Daniel Mael, a 22-year-old Brandeis senior, returned to campus for his final semester last week, he was advised by university police not to walk anywhere alone.

“My lifestyle on campus has to be altered to ensure my safety,” said Mael, a Jewish student originally from Newton, Mass., who met with Brandeis security officials over winter break to discuss details. “We’re still figuring out the specifics.”
These added security precautions were set in motion after an article Mael wrote shortly before winter break sparked outrage among the Brandeis student body and beyond. 
According to Mael, he and his family have received threats of physical violence since.
The article, published on the conservative news website Truth Revolt, criticized fellow Brandeis student Khadijah Lynch’s inflammatory tweets after the funeral of two slain New York police officers.
“I have no sympathy for the nypd officers who were murdered today,” tweeted Lynch, a junior who served in a student leadership position in the African and Afro-American studies department. Lynch has since stepped down from the role and made her previously public twitter account private.
Lynch’s tweets went on to lambast America (“F--- this f---ing country,” read one) and talk about violence (“i need to get my gun license. asap” and “amerikkka needs an intifada. enough is enough”).
As the controversy grew, some students pushed for Lynch to be expelled while others backed her, defending her right to free speech and criticizing Mael for placing her in danger by publicizing her tweets.
In an email to the student body, Michael Piccione, a member of the 2014-15 student conduct board, accused Mael of violating several codes of student conduct and compromising Lynch’s safety by “exposing” her tweets to Mael’s “largely white supremacist following.” He called on the Brandeis community to “condemn the threatening and hateful comments she [Lynch] has received and stand up for the principle of social justice on which Brandeis was founded.”
Piccione also requested a “no contact order” against Mael on Dec. 28, which was briefly put into effect and prevented Mael from being in the same room with Piccione. The order has since been lifted.
Though the immediate heat following the article’s publication has subsided, the incident caused some to speculate that Mael’s staunchly pro-Israel stance played a role in backlash he received from fellow students.
“Mael getting death threats makes sense — he puts himself in the spotlight,” said Rebecca Sternberg, a junior on campus who is on the board of the Brandeis Zionist Alliance, a student group that celebrates the apolitical aspects of Israel, including art and culture.
Though Sternberg sympathizes with Mael’s pro-Israel stance, she disagreed with his “tactics.” “I have less sympathy for Mael than for Khadijah,” she said. “Khadijah didn’t try and put herself in the spotlight, she was forced into it.”
David Eden, chief administrative officer at Hillel International and a veteran editor and columnist, said, “There’s no doubt that as a high-profile Israel activist on campus, Daniel was a target on and off campus.”
Eden, who taught journalism at John Carroll University in Ohio and at the United Arab Emirates University in Abu Dhabi said “Mael did his job as a journalist” and “used his First Amendment rights” to report on a student leader’s controversial public statements. “The larger pro-Israel community has been shocked and amazed by the activity against Mael on campus,” he said.
Daniel Kasdan, a recent Brandeis graduate, said his Facebook newsfeed was “exploding” about the incident over winter break, as Brandeis students weighed in.
Kasdan agreed that Mael is somewhat of a marked man on campus because of his strong conservative standpoints. “Mael is consistently a vocal supporter of conservative causes,” he said. “People who either agree with him politically or find his views objectionable are using this case as a rallying point, either for or against,” he said.
Mael is viewed as a “challenge” to Bradeis’ more “liberal crowd,” said Kasdan. “Mael is viewed as the last refuge for the pro-Israel camp.”
Sternberg agreed that Mael’s proudly conservative viewpoints, most of which are not largely shared by his fellow students, are at the issue’s core. “Brandeis is a super-liberal school, and people will automatically take the liberal side,” she said.
The “liberal side” of the issue became increasingly murky, as articles on free speech and its limitations abounded. In one particularly well-circulated response, Alan Dershowitz, the noted former Harvard Law School professor known for his staunch defense of Israel defended Mael’s freedom of expression.
“So welcome to the topsy-turvy world of the academic hard left, where bigoted speech by fellow hard leftists is protected, but counter-expression is labeled as ‘embarrassment,’ ‘incitement’ and ‘bullying,’” wrote Dershowitz.
Still, even Brandeis students sympathetic with Mael’s viewpoint defended Lynch’s freedom of expression.
“I personally don’t agree with anything Khadijah said but I do think she has the right to express herself,” wrote Rachel Dobkin, a member of the the Brandeis Orthodox Organization, in an online correspondence. “No one agrees with her that I know of, and I think as an institution that values dialogue about important societal issues, it’s revolting that people wanted her expelled.”
Another Jewish student, who requested anonymity because he was “scared Daniel will come after me next,” said that Mael’s “polarizing” positions have driven a wedge between different segments of the Jewish community on campus.
“He’s created two camps,” he said, the “J Street folks,” a reference to the dovish pro-Israel lobby group, “and the Hillel folks,” The student, a junior, said he’s “personally intrigued” by J Street’s mission, but afraid to get more involved lest his friends at Hillel feel “betrayed.”
“I feel very guilty about not taking a public stand for Daniel, but he keeps antagonizing people,” he said.
To be sure, Mael is no stranger to taking a public stance against another student. On Jan. 2, the Wall Street Journal published an article headlined “How to Fight the Campus Speech Police: Get a Good Lawyer” detailing Mael’s yearlong dispute with Eli Philip, the head of Brandeis J Street U, the organization’s campus arm. The article describes how Mael hired a lawyer to defend himself against harassment claims brought against him by Philip.
J Street officials declined to comment on the incident. They also declined to comment on the Lynch incident. Philip declined to comment as well.
Mael was also involved in a kerfuffle with Brandeis J Street U board member Talia Lepson, who Mael accused of verbally harassing him. According to Mael, Lepson responded to his “Shabbat shalom” with “Jews hate you.” Mael reported the case to university police. Though the case went no further, there was a sprinkling of media coverage. 
“These repeated incidents make Brandeis look really bad, and students resent that,” said Sarah, a Brandeis senior who preferred only to use her first name to avoid getting involved in the politics of the situation. Sarah, who is an actively pro-Israel student on campus, said she feels that Brandeis is a “comfortable place” to be an Israel supporter.
Andrew Flagel, senior vice president for students and enrollment at Brandeis, encouraged further dialogue, which he called “the best disinfectant.” He added that “Brandeis welcomes its students to express different viewpoints, even those with which people radically disagree.”
Regarding the “no contact order” briefly issued against Mael, Flagel said, “It’s not unusual to ask students for timeouts in communication with one another.”
Still, after all that has happened, Mael feels abandoned by his fellow students.
“I’m deeply disappointed by the reaction of the Brandeis community,” said Mael, who chose to attend Brandeis because his grandfather had been a member of the 1955 graduating class. “Some students have reached out to me privately with support. Some even made fake email accounts to communicate with me. The intimidation that many students feel on their college campus is chilling.”
Tal Fortgang, a sophomore at Princeton University, sympathizes deeply with Mael. He encountered a similarly overwhelming response when his article, “Checking My Privilege,” went viral last year. In the article Fortgang, the grandchild of Holocaust survivors, defended his perceived “privilege” as a well-educated white male, attributing his opportunities to the sacrifices of his grandparents. The piece, which touched upon “firebrand racial issues,” incited high emotions. The article was even called “an act of violence” by some students, Fortgang said.
“Daniel is going through what I went through, only a far more severe and prolonged version,” said Fortgang, who is originally from New Rochelle. “There is no accounting for people not rushing to his defense.”
Still, even from an outsider’s perspective, Fortgang agreed that there is more to the situation than meets the eye.
“Daniel’s hawkish, unwavering support of Israel is not tangential in this case. There is a strange alliance between certain political views and other causes,” he said. “Clearly Daniel is a man of great integrity. I hope he stands strong.”