May G-d bless the IDF with the strength of Joshua.
with love of Israel …. Blog administrator
………….
A Prayer For the Soldiers of Israel
“May He who blessed our forefathers, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, bless the soldiers of the Israel Defence Forces, who stand watch over our land and the cities of our Lord, from the Lebanese border to the desert of Egypt and from the great sea to the verge of the wilderness, on land, in the air, and at sea. May God strike down before them our enemies who rise against us. May the Holy One save and spare our soldiers from all forms of woe and distress, of affliction and illness, and may He invest their every action with blessing and success. May he vanquish by their means those who hate us, and may He adorn them with a crown of deliverance and a mantle of victory. Thus may the verse be fulfilled: “For it is the Lord your God who marches with you to do battle for you against your enemy, to bring you victory. Now let us respond. Amen. “
Prayer for the State of Israel
“Our Father in Heaven, Rock and Redeemer of the people Israel; Bless the State of Israel, with its promise of redemption. Shield it with Your love; spread over it the shelter of Your peace. Guide its leaders and advisors with Your light and Your truth. Help them with Your good counsel. Strengthen the hands of those who defend our Holy Land. Deliver them; crown their efforts with triumph. Bless the land with peace, and its inhabitants with lasting joy. And let us say: Amen.” — (translation from Siddur Sim Shalom
As a defamer of his fellow Jews, Noam Chomsky is in a class of his own. “Hitler’s conceptions,” he once wrote, “have struck a responsive chord in current Zionist commentary.” Israel, he added, is guilty of planning a “final solution” for humanity, an apocalypse from which “few will escape.” The world-famous MIT professor and far-left intellectual guru has described the PLO as “heroic,” while vilifying America’s Jewish community as “deeply totalitarian.” He has collaborated with Holocaust deniers, allowing them to publish and distribute his books, and he gave hisendorsementto an antisemitic author (the late Israel Shahak) who alleged that observant Jews pray to the Devil.
But these efforts pale before the cause that has animated Chomsky for the past decade. That cause is solidarity with the blood-drenched perpetrators of Islamist terror.
The fact that Iran’s rulers want to annihilate Israel is not in dispute among informed people. The ayatollahs and their accessories have characterized the Jewish state as a “cancerous tumor” that must be “uprooted from the region,” a “dried, rotten tree that will collapse with a single storm,” a “filthy microbe,” a “stinking corpse,” a “germ of corruption” that “will be wiped off the face of the world.” But as Chomsky sees it, “Israel and the United States are both threatening Iran with destruction.” Iran, declares Chomsky, would be “crazy” not to build nuclear bombs to counter this threat.
In 2006, Chomsky visited Lebanon, where he basked in the warm affections of Hezbollah. These terrorists, he announced, are perfectly justified in keeping their arms (which include tens of thousands of rockets aimed at Israel’s civilian population) as a “deterrent to potential aggression.” Some may recall the uses to which Hezbollah’s weapons have already been put: the slaughter of hundreds of American peacekeepers, the destruction of American and Israeli embassies, the indiscriminate bombardment of Israeli towns and cities, the massacre of Jews as far afield as Argentina. Was it for this, one wonders, that Chomsky allowed himself to be filmed greeting leaders of Hezbollah as long-lost friends?
Interviewed on Lebanese television, Chomsky gave further insight into his political allegiances. “The policies of Hamas,” he insisted, “are more forthcoming and more conducive to a peaceful settlement than those of the United States or Israel… The policies, in my view, are unacceptable, but preferable to the policies of the United States and Israel.” Viewers may well have been perplexed at the sight of this Jewish academic who apparently considers the demand for the murder of all Jews – clearly stated in the Hamas covenant – preferable to Israel’s official support for the two-state solution.
Evidently unsatisfied with mere apologetics for Hamas, Chomsky has now decided to show his fellowship with the jihadists in person. Visiting Gaza in October – shortly before the latest rocket attacks on Israeli towns and cities – Chomsky spoke at the Islamic University, an institutionestablished by Hamas founder Sheikh Ahmed Yassin and recognized as a training ground for the Hamas leadership. Bestowing intellectual legitimacy on this terrorist front by attending an “international conference on languages and literature,” he also received an honorary doctorate for his anti-Israel activities, and rewarded his hosts by demanding an end to the blockade of the Hamas enclave. His words having met with the approval of the terror masters, Chomsky was granted an audience with none other than the Hamas prime minister, Ismail Haniyeh, who hailed his “courageous positions in support of the Palestinian people.”
Even as he consorted with this dispatcher of suicide bombers, a man involved in the murder and mutilation of hundreds of innocent Jews, Chomsky’s traveling companions (most of them linguistics professors) brazenly insisted that nothing was amiss. In a public statement on the situation, they conceded that American academics “are prevented by law from having any contact with the government in Gaza,” and cited “assurances” (worthless, of course) that the Islamic University is not linked to Hamas. But they labored in vain to conceal the truth: that the conference at the university was a mere pretext for assignations with terrorists. “Additional events,” they confessed, “were organized solely for Noam Chomsky,” and among those events were “meetings with Palestinian politicians (including the elected prime minister)” – that is to say, private sessions with figures from Hamas, including Ismail Haniyeh. Here, then, is an admission by his own supporters that Chomsky has been fraternizing with the Hamas leadership, possibly in violation of American law.
Just how important is Chomsky? Why should anyone care that he is rubbing shoulders with some of the world’s most evil terrorists? The answer is that Chomsky was voted “the world’s top public intellectual” by over 4,000 readers of Foreign Policy magazine. His book 9-11, which denied bin Laden’s guilt for the September 11 mass murders, sold 300,000 copies. Wherever he travels, he addresses packed audiences and elicits rapturous applause. In Britain, one of his diatribes wasbroadcast in Manchester city center by the BBC. When he tried to visit Ireland on an expired passport a few years ago, the country’s foreign minister intervened to grant him entry. As a result, cheering crowds were able to watch him denounce the Irish Government for war crimes, confuse the then-presidents of Egypt and Pakistan, and warn that American policies would culminate in an “Armageddon of our own making.”
Over his long public career, Noam Chomsky has plumbed the depths of political iniquity, from support for Maoist China (“quite admirable”) and apologetics for Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge (“may actually have saved many lives”) to the defense of Holocaust deniers (one of whom he labeled “a relatively apolitical liberal of some sort”) and dismissal of bin Laden’s responsibility for 9/11. Now he describes the Iranian ayatollahs as victims of American and Israeli aggression, while embracing terrorist commanders notorious for their skill in murdering Jews.
When his political activities are called into question, Chomsky reacts by comparing himself to the prophets of the Bible. Perhaps, therefore, he should be judged in light of the words of Isaiah: “the wicked are like the troubled sea, which cannot rest, and whose waters cast up mire and dirt.”
TORONTO — A Palestinian terrorist who fought the Canadian government’s attempts to expel him for 26 years was finally deported to Lebanon on the weekend aboard a flight chartered by the Canada Border Services Agency.
CPMahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad, shown in this undated file photo, was deported over the weekend.
Citizenship and Immigration Minister Jason Kenney was expected to announce the deportation of Mahmoud Mohammad Issa Mohammad, 70, who had been living in southern Ontario since 1987, on Monday afternoon in Ottawa.
The case of the former Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine member had become symbolic of the flaws in Canada’s immigration system, often cited as an example of the government’s inability to control its own borders.
Despite being convicted for attacking an El Al passenger plane in Athens in 1968, Mohammad immigrated to Canada in 1987 by concealing his past. Federal officials began deportation proceedings against him in 1988 but he fended them off by filing appeal after appeal in the courts.
But following one last latest flurry of court appeals two weeks ago, his legal odyssey reached its end. In making the announcement, Mr. Kenney was expected to argue that such a delay could not happen again due to changes introduced by his government.
Many Canadians were angered by Mohammad’s lengthy stay in Canada. After joining the PFLP at age 25, he underwent a month of military training before he was sent to Greece to take part in a terrorist attack.
On Boxing Day, 1968, he and an accomplice stormed a Boeing 707 as it was readying for takeoff. They fired 83 rounds at the plane and lobbed six grenades, killing one passenger. Mohammad was caught and sentenced to 17 years in prison, but in 1970, he was freed after Palestinian terrorists hijacked a Greek airliner and threatened to blow it up unless he was released.
Mohammad moved to Cyprus and then travelled to Spain, where he applied to immigrate to Canada. Together with his wife and three children, he arrived in Canada as an immigrant on Feb. 25, 1987.
It took authorities a year to figure out he had not been truthful when he claimed on his immigration application that he had never been convicted of a crime. An immigration adjudicator ruled in December, 1988, that he should be deported.
But Mohammad then applied for refugee status and, although his claim was rejected, he remained in Canada while his appeals were heard by the courts. Some of his more recent appeals argued he could not be deported because his health was bad and the Lebanese medical system was inadequate.
Dr. Applebaum appeared at the scene of numerous terror attacks in Jerusalem, helping evacuate and treat scores of victims.
In September 2003, on the second anniversary year of the September 11 attacks, Dr. Appelbaum came to New York and discussed best practices in handling emergencies.
He returned home for his daughter Nava’s wedding. The next day, they were killed in an Islamic terrorist bombing attack on the eve of her wedding.
The commandment to “love one’s neighbor” is carried out by Israel’s military and civilians in their responses to disasters around the world — both natural and man-made; at the time of crisis and years later; to both friends and enemies.
The commandment is broader than just loving friends, as the entire quote makes clear. It also covers people that hurt you. It is easy to ignore such people and hold a grudge. The bible directs people to avoid that instinct. Explain the pain; correct the imperfect. There may not be reconciliation, but kindness may lead to dialogue. At a minimum, the positive actions will have a positive impact on your other actions and attitudes.
Remembering Naava Applebaum
A few hours before the bombing, on September 9, Naava Applebaum attended the mikveh (ritual bath), as required by Halakha (Jewish law) for all brides prior to their wedding. She then began helping her family with the wedding arrangements, when her father decided to take her out for a “father-daughter” talk before her wedding. They went to Café Hillel on Emek Refaim Street, in Jerusalem.
On the day of the bombing, September 9, security guards in the vicinity of Café Hillel were told to be on the lookout for a suicide bomber. At around 11:20 pm, a security guard stationed at a nearby pizza parlor noticed a man walking by with a bulky square-shaped box under his shirt.He yelled at the man to stop, but the man refused. The security guard did not want to shoot him in the back, for fear that it would detonate the bomb. A few seconds later, the suicide bomber detonated the bomb close to the entrance of Café Hillel.Nava and her father were entering the cafe at that time.Nava was killed together with her father.She was dead by the time she was reached by paramedics.
Applebaum’s fiancé, Chanan Sand, collapsed in the emergency room of Shaare Zedek Medical Center upon hearing that his fiancée had not survived.She was buried the next day adjacent to her father in the Har HaMenuchot cemetery, in the western part of Jerusalem.
Hundreds of friends and relatives traveling to Israel for the wedding arrived to find that they would be attending her funeral instead, on the day she was supposed to get married. Sand attended the funeral, and placed in her grave the wedding ring he had planned on giving her at the wedding.
Denial is likely to continue until the price gets too steep. The 3,000 victims of 9/11, it turns out, did not suffice to shake Western complacency. 30,000 dead, in all likelihood, will also not suffice. Perhaps 300,000 will. For sure, three million will. At that point, worries about Muslim sensibilities and fear of being called an “Islamophobe” will fade into irrelevance, replaced by a single-minded determination to protect lives. Should the existing order someday be in evident danger, today’s relaxed approach will instantly go out the window. The popular support for such measures exists; as early as 2004, aCornell University poll showed that 44 percent of Americans “believe that some curtailment of civil liberties is necessary for Muslim Americans.”[47]
Israel offers a control case. Because it faces so many threats, the body politic lacks patience with liberal pieties when it comes to security. While aspiring to treat everyone fairly, the government clearly targets the most violent-prone elements of society. Should other Western countries face acomparable danger, circumstances will likely compel them to adopt this same approach.
Conversely, should such mass dangers not arise, this shift will probably never take place. Until and unless disaster on a large scale strikes, denial will continue. Western tactics, in other words, depend entirely on the brutality and competence of the Islamist enemy. Ironically, the West permits terrorists to drive its approach to counterterrorism. No less ironically, it will take a huge terrorist atrocity to enable effective counterterrorism.
Explaining the Denial
Denying Islam’s Role in Terror
by Daniel Pipes Middle East Quarterly
Spring 2013, pp. 3-12
http://opinion.financialpost.com/2013/04/16/worker-visas-that-work/
The recent brouhaha over the RBC outsourcing of IT employees reflects the substandard quality of Canadian technology personnel and the failure of our immigration system to supply needed human resources.
This stands in stark contrast to America’s success in nurturing high technology titans like Google, Cisco, and Facebook, in flourishing hubs such as the famed Silicon Valley. Most of these corporations and technology hubs have made heavy usage of temporary worker visa programs, such as H1B and L1 visas.
These visas differ from the Canadian Temporary Worker Visas in substantial ways. The primary difference is that Canada’s program tries to shoehorn multiple employer needs into a broad category, encompassing everything from farm employees to fast food workers, coal miners to IT developers.
H1B visas, by contrast, are focused on professional categories and specialty occupations, geared towards highly qualified personnel. Visa holders must be paid prevailing wages and the recruiting firm is required to advertise for the position among Americans before recruiting foreign employees.
The H1B program is hardly immune from criticism. Highly paid American technology workers have raised alarm over possible abuses, including the usage of temporary visas to lower wages. Commentators like Lou Dobbs (former CNN host) raised hysteria to fever pitch levels with such provocative titles as ‘Outsourcing America’.
U.S. corporations counter that built-in requirements, such as salary equivalency and advertising for American employees, ensure that wage depression and job losses among citizens do not result from the program.
The results speak for themselves. Since the program began, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics has revealed that the Technology Sector Employment in America has been one of the few industries where employment levels have recovered to pre-recession levels. The Bureau also projects that through 2020, the sector’s employment will grow by 22%, a figure that other industries would be happy to replicate.
The Bureau’s figures are valid for American citizens and do not include temporary workers.
Yom Ha’atzmaut (Hebrew: יום העצמאות Yōm hā-ʿAṣmāʾūṯ lit. “Independence Day”) is the national day of Israel, commemorating the Israeli Declaration of Independence in 1948. It is celebrated on 5th of Iyar according to the Hebrew calendar. Yom Ha’atzmaut is preceded by Yom Hazikaron, the Israeli Fallen Soldiers and Victims of Terrorism Remembrance Day.
“The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.
“In the year 5657 (1897), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the First Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.
“This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the Mandate of the League of Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz-Israel and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its National Home.”
Excerpt from Israel’s Declaration of Independence – May 14, 1948
…. herewith is my answer to your question about Article 80 of the UN Charter and how that provision of law affects the UN in deciding on the Arab “Palestinian” bid to be recognized as a new independent state in Judea Samaria and Gaza, with its capital in eastern Jerusalem. I strongly believe that any resolution adopted by the Security Council or General Assembly recognizing “Palestinian” statehood would be blatantly illegal in violation of its own Charter (specifically Article 80) and also beyond the authority of both these UN organs.
Article 80 preserves intact the rights of the Jewish People granted under the Mandate for Palestine , and those rights could not be altered in any way unless there had been an intervening trusteeship agreement between the parties concerned. No such agreement was ever made during the three year period from 1945 to 1948 when it was possible to make this kind of agreement and it is now too late to do so. Therefore all Jewish rights under the Mandate remain in full force today, including in particular the right to establish new Jewish settlements in any part of former Mandated Palestine under effective Israeli control.
All UN bodies and agencies are obliged or bound by Article 80 and therefore the UN cannot legally prevent the Jews of Israel from exercising their rights or interfering with them that were recognized under the Mandate, or transfer those rights to a non-Jewish entity such as the “Palestinian” Authority. All of Palestine was reserved or assigned exclusively for the Jewish National Home on April 25, 1920 upon the adoption of the San Remo Resolution even though the boundaries of the country were not delineated on that particular date* and no part of the land was allotted for an Arab National Home or State since Arab self determination was being granted elsewhere in Syria, Iraq, Arabia and North Africa.
Moreover, the UN is not the sovereign of the land we call Eretz-Israel where a new Arab state is to be established contrary to existing international law. I enunciated this very point in my two hour interview with a film crew from the European Council for Israel that took place on May 3, 2011 at my Jerusalem home. Unfortunately this very important point was edited out of the You Tube video “Give Peace a Chance”, now widely shown on the internet. By this fact alone, the UN has no authority or power to divide the land for the purpose of creating this new Arab “Palestinian” state.
Apart from that fact, there is no provision in the UN Charter, which is an international treaty, that gives the UN the power to create a new state, or to allot territory to create such a state especially in the case where the land in question belongs to the Jewish People.
If the UN had such power, then logically it would also have the inverse power to “de-create” or dismember an existing state, a power it certainly does not hold under the UN Charter.
For the foregoing reasons, the bill introduced in Congress by Ileana Ros – Lehtinen to withdraw American funding to the UN if it recognizes Arab “Palestinian” statehood is definitely the proper course of action to follow.
* The borders for the Jewish Homeland were decided on Dec. 23rd. 1920.
Best regards,
Howard Grief
Mandate for Palestine, April 24, 1920.
Boundaries of the Land in which the JEWISH National Homewas to be reconstituted.
To Mr. Leonello Gabrici
The Head of the Division,
Middle East II: Israel, Occupied Palestinian Territory,
Middle East Peace Process,
European External Action Service
Brussels, Belgium
Dear Mr. Gabrici,
I am appalled and dumbstruck by the fact that you are the Head of a Division of the European External Action Service whose jurisdiction explicitly deals with “Middle East II: Israel, Occupied Palestinian Territory, Middle East Peace Process”. This title is an insult to the Jewish People, to Zionism and the valiant struggle that the Jews waged to reclaim their ancient homeland, a struggle that began in earnest with the convocation of the first Zionist Congress at Basel, Switzerland in 1897.
The country of Palestine was created in April 1920 at the San Remo Peace Conference for one purpose only – to be the Jewish National Home, and the term “Occupied Palestinian Territory” is thus an oxymoron since Palestine was never intended to be an Arab land under international law now supposedly “occupied” by Israel, as the title of your office implies, but rather was always intended to be a Jewish land that was to reconstitute the ancient Jewish State of Judea destroyed by Rome in the first century C.E. It takes staggering ignorance or ingrained hostility to the Jewish People and Zionism to believe that the land known to the Jews as Eretz-Israel since the time of Joshua Bin-Nun, long before it was called Palestine, belongs to the local Arab inhabitants who have falsely re-branded themselves as “Palestinians”.
Posted by Barzel_18 
