I thought I was going to die, it was much worse than what we call a danger to your life,” an Israeli Navy commando who was severely beaten [...]]]> Israeli Navy commando testifies to Turkel committee about an attack by a violent mob wielding clubs and bars aboard the flotilla ship’s deck.

[Read Article at Jpost.com]

I thought I was going to die, it was much worse than what we call a danger to your life,” an Israeli Navy commando who was severely beaten and kidnapped by the violent mob aboard the Mavi Maramara Turkish passenger ship last May said in testimony revealed on Sunday.

The testimony was revealed by the Turkel Committee’s report submitted to the government on Sunday as well as in a report published by the Meir Amit Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center (ITIC).

Identified as Soldier A. in the report, the Navy commando described how he was immediately lynched upon landing on the Mavi Marmara’s upper deck after fast-roping down from an Israeli helicopter.

“Before my feet hit the deck about 10 men jumped on me and started beating me with clubs, iron bars, their fists and anything else they could find. They beat my whole body, but they focused especially my head and face. I have to make it clear that at that point I wasn’t armed,” the soldier was quoted as saying in the report. “That was when I knew my life was really in immediate danger.”

Soldier A. was thrown over the side of the upper deck to the ship’s bottom level and broke his arm upon landing. After landing, he said, another mob started choking him while driving fingers into his eyes in an attempt to gouge them out.

“At that point they acted like they were fighting an enemy and had come to kill him, that is, kill me. I kept waiting for the blow to my head that would kill me,” he testified, adding that he was later hospitalized with skull fractures and two cranial hemorrhages.

Another command, identified as Soldier B. said that he encountered a frenzied mob with “insane eyes full of hate.”

All the people surrounding me were hitting me as hard as they could, especially my head. They were in a frenzy, screaming ‘Allahu akbar’ ['Allah is great'] over and over. They were hitting me all over,” he said.

According to the soldier, after he was taken down to the lower levels of the ship, he was told in English that they planned to kill him.

“They dragged me down a ladder, two men, one above and one below… while they were dragging me by my pants they started coming off and my shirt hiked up. I saw that there was massive bleeding and I could see my intestines spilling out of my stomach,” he said.

[Read Article at Jpost.com]

As Hezbollah opens up their anti-Israel theme park, Israel prepares to open up their very own Disney Park in Haifa. Read about it here.

The Media’s Newest Drug Fad

By Erez Rosenberg

There’s a new designer drug, a hallucinogen, and it seems to be gaining popularity in the media. It’s called “Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace.” For all intents and purposes, let’s [...]]]> The following article is in response to Ian Byrne’s column posted on October 4th. You can read Ian’s article here.

The Media’s Newest Drug Fad

By Erez Rosenberg

There’s a new designer drug, a hallucinogen, and it seems to be gaining popularity in the media. It’s called “Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace.” For all intents and purposes, let’s nickname it ID-CAP. The first dealer of this drug was Karl Vick, when TIME magazine published his anti-Semitic article, “Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace” as the cover story for their September 2010 issue.

A summary of Vick’s article: He portrayed an interview with two Jewish Israeli citizens in a light that made it seem that those two individuals—which suddenly represent all of Israel—do not care about pursuing peace in their country because Jewish Israelis are too preoccupied with making as much money as they can. Writes Vick, “…the truth is, Israelis are no longer preoccupied with the matter. They’re otherwise engaged; they’re making money; they’re enjoying the rays of late summer.”

In 1919, twenty years before the occurrence of the atrocities that have come to define the Holocaust, Adolf Hitler wrote the following in a letter to a comrade: “This thinking and striving after money and power, and the feelings that go along with it, serve the purposes of the Jew who is unscrupulous in the choice of methods and pitiless in their employment…In democracies he vies for the favor of the masses, cringes before the “majesty of the people”, and recognizes only the majesty of money.”

Somehow ignoring for a moment that Karl Vick draws on a similar anti-Semitic sentiment to that  used by Hitler to rally hatred against the Jews during the 1930’s and 1940’s, what basis does Vick have to make such preposterous claims? The statements of two Israelis relaxing at the beach on their day off?

Sadly enough, this anti-Israel drug, ID-CAP, appears to have become accessible to our local media and community in the Minnesota Daily. It is clear that in his column in the Minnesota Daily, Ian J Byrne attempts to maintain a neutral position on what he eloquently calls the “Israeli-Palestinian migraine.” But a major cornerstone of his argument for why Israel and Palestine cannot reach a peace agreement is based on his declaration that Israelis don’t need peace. “…the fact of the matter is, from a national interest standpoint, Israel does not have any pressing reasons to reach a peace deal,” writes Byrne.

What is the difference between the statement made by Byrne compared to the one made by Vick? Instead of having Vick’s profound number of two Israeli citizens to support his claim, Byrne has a mere one. His entire argument that Israel does not need peace is based on the opinion of a single Israeli citizen, Tel Aviv resident Nir Sagie. What authority Sagie, a 30-year-old linguist, has to speak for his entire nation is a bit unclear.

Let’s move past the opinions of the three Israelis that have been mentioned. We need to focus on the nation as a whole to determine whether Israel cares about peace. Israelis are always aware of the threats against their nation because of a lack of peace.

Without peace, Israelis live in constant fear of attack. If Israel doesn’t care about peace—if Israel doesn’t need peace—then does this mean that Israelis do not care about the ever-present dangers in their daily lives? Why is it mandatory for all Israelis to enlist in the military immediately after graduating high school? Why are these same men and women required to serve on the military reserves until their early 40’s? In all of its young history as a nation, Israel has never used its military for anything other than protecting its citizens. Why is it that a new building is not up to code unless it has a bomb shelter that can house all of the building’s occupants? Why is a bomb shelter as common in any residential house or apartment as is a bathroom? These living conditions in Israel have directly been brought about by an absence of peace. To say that anyone that lives in such conditions does not need peace—as if peace is some sort of negative entity—is ridiculous and ignorant at best.

While Vick and Byrne are certainly be no means close to the evil that was Adolf Hitler, if the media doesn’t get past this “Israel doesn’t care about peace” fad soon, we could soon enough find ourselves tumbling down a dangerous path that only leads to the same type of resentment that fostered the murders of over six million Jews.

Ian Byrne’s Oct. 4 column, “The Israeli-Palestinian Migraine,” was myopic and misinformed . It dangerously misunderstands the reality on the ground, which is that peace is readily possible if [...]]]> The following article is in response to Ian Byrne’s column posted on October 4th. You can read Ian’s article here.

Israel Wants Peace

By Dan Garon

Ian Byrne’s Oct. 4 column, “The Israeli-Palestinian Migraine,” was myopic and misinformed . It dangerously misunderstands the reality on the ground, which is that peace is readily possible if the Palestinians and the Arabs world would commit to negotiation and be a viable partner for peace.

Despite what the column construed, the Obama administration has been seeking the resumption of peace talks since early 2009. The Israelis, our allies, have been willing partners ever since. The Palestinian Authority , the supposed aggrieved party, had refused to participate. Month after month, Obama’s envoy, former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell,  shuttled back and forth between Israelis and the Palestinian Authority, hoping to start what he called proximity talks. The Palestinian Authority said no.

In late 2009, the Israelis put forward a one-time confidence building measure: For 10 months, the Israeli government would stop all construction in the settlements. It means completely freezing an entire industry and preventing even natural growth within cities that will remain in Israel under any foreseeable peace agreement.

Yet month after month, the Palestinian Authority refused to talk. The freeze proved ineffective.

It wasn’t until the beginning of month nine, with the deadline looming, that the Palestinian Authority finally agreed to begin talks. Their delay was an attempt to extract a permanent concession out of Israel, and the Israelis recoiled.

John F. Kennedy said that, “We cannot negotiate with those who say, ‘What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable.’” The status of the settlements, borders, refugees and a host of other issues, need to be negotiated during the negotiations, not before them.

History indicates how badly the Israelis want peace. They didn’t pull out of negotiations after Hamas  murdered an Israeli family of four in the West Bank  in late August and the Israelis have a history of making difficult concessions. In 2005, Israel withdrew from all settlements in the Gaza Strip .

The Israelis are seriously prepared to make peace with the Palestinians, but no progress can be made if there is no committed negotiating partner on the other side of the table.

Dan Garon, University student, former president of Gopher Israel

Benyamin Netanyahu crafted a beautiful response, and spoke to the UN just days after Ahmadinejad did. Read the full transcript [...]]]> Days ago Mahmoud Ahmadinejad spoke in front of the United Nations. While many delegates did not attend the speech, or walked out mid-speak, many countries did stay and provide the radical Iranian Dictator with legitimacy.

Benyamin Netanyahu crafted a beautiful response, and spoke to the UN just days after Ahmadinejad did. Read the full transcript below.

Mr. President, Ladies and Gentlemen,

Nearly 62 years ago, the United Nations recognized the right of the Jews, an ancient people 3,500 years-old, to a state of their own in their ancestral homeland.

I stand here today as the Prime Minister of Israel, the Jewish state, and I speak to you on behalf of my country and my people.

The United Nations was founded after the carnage of World War II and the horrors of the Holocaust. It was charged with preventing the recurrence of such horrendous events.

Nothing has undermined that central mission more than the systematic assault on the truth. Yesterday the President of Iran stood at this very podium, spewing his latest anti-Semitic rants. Just a few days earlier, he again claimed that the Holocaust is a lie.

Last month, I went to a villa in a suburb of Berlin called Wannsee. There, on January 20, 1942, after a hearty meal, senior Nazi officials met and decided how to exterminate the Jewish people. The detailed minutes of that meeting have been preserved by successive German governments. Here is a copy of those minutes, in which the Nazis issued precise instructions on how to carry out the extermination of the Jews. Is this a lie?

A day before I was in Wannsee, I was given in Berlin the original construction plans for the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp. Those plans are signed by Hitler’s deputy, Heinrich Himmler himself. Here is a copy of the plans for Auschwitz-Birkenau, where one million Jews were murdered. Is this too a lie?

This June, President Obama visited the Buchenwald concentration camp. Did President Obama pay tribute to a lie?

And what of the Auschwitz survivors whose arms still bear the tattooed numbers branded on them by the Nazis? Are those tattoos a lie? One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife’s grandparents, her father’s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewi sh people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state.

What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations! Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You’re wrong.

History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

This Iranian regime is fueled by an extreme fundamentalism that burst onto the world scene three decades ago after lying dormant for centuries. In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others. Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times.

Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated. The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization.

It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.

The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day. Ultimately, the past cannot triumph over the future. And the future offers all nations magnificent bounties of hope. The pace of progress is growing exponentially.

It took us centuries to get from the printing press to the telephone, decades to get from the telephone to the personal computer, and only a few years to get from the personal computer to the internet.

What seemed impossible a few years ago is already outdated, and we can scarcely fathom the changes that are yet to come. We will crack the genetic code. We will cure the incurable. We will lengthen our lives. We will find a cheap alternative to fossil fuels and clean up the planet.

I am proud that my country Israel is at the forefront of these advances – by leading innovations in science and technology, medicine and biology, agriculture and water, energy and the environment. These innovations the world over offer humanity a sunlit future of unimagined promise.

But if the most primitive fanaticism can acquire the most deadly weapons, the march of history could be reversed for a time. And like the belated victory over the Nazis, the forces of progress and freedom will prevail only after an horrific toll of blood and fortune has been exacted from mankind. That is why the greatest threat facing the world today is the marriage between religious fanaticism and the weapons of mass destruction.

The most urgent challenge facing this body is to prevent the tyrants of Tehran from acquiring nuclear weapons. Are the member states of the United Nations up to that challenge? Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood? Will the international community thwart the world’s most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

Ladies and Gentlemen,

The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging. Rather than condemning the terrorists and their Iranian patrons, some here have condemned their victims. That is exactly what a recent UN report on Gaza did, falsely equating the terrorists with those they targeted.

For eight long years, Hamas fired from Gaza thousands of missiles, mortars and rockets on nearby Israeli cities. Year after year, as these missiles were deliberately hurled at our civilians, not a single UN resolution was passed condemning those criminal attacks. We heard nothing – absolutely nothing – from the UN Human Rights Council, a misnamed institution if there ever was one.

In 2005, hoping to advance peace, Israel unilaterally withdrew from every inch of Gaza. It dismantled 21 settlements and uprooted over 8,000 Israelis. We didn’t get peace. Instead we got an Iranian backed terror base fifty miles from Tel Aviv. Life in Israeli towns and cities next to Gaza became a nightmare. You see, the Hamas rocket attacks not only continued, they increased tenfold. Again, the UN was silent.

Finally, after eight years of this unremitting assault, Israel was finally forced to respond. But how should we have responded? Well, there is only one example in history of thousands of rockets being fired on a country’s civilian population. It happened when the Nazis rocketed British cities during World War II. During that war, the allies leveled German cities, causing hundreds of thousands of casualties. Israel chose to respond differently. Faced with an enemy committing a double war crime of firing on civilians while hiding behind civilians – Israel sought to conduct surgical strikes against the rocket launchers.

That was no easy task because the terrorists were firing missiles from homes and schools, using mosques as weapons depots and ferreting explosives in ambulances. Israel, by contrast, tried to minimize casualties by urging Palestinian civilians to vacate the targeted areas.

We dropped countless flyers over their homes, sent thousands of text messages and called thousands of cell phones asking people to leave. Never has a country gone to such extraordinary lengths to remove the enemy’s civilian population from harm’s way.

Yet faced with such a clear case of aggressor and victim, who did the UN Human Rights Council decide to condemn? Israel. A democracy legitimately defending itself against terror is morally hanged, drawn and quartered, and given an unfair trial to boot.

By these twisted standards, the UN Human Rights Council would have dragged Roosevelt and Churchill to the dock as war criminals. What a perversion of truth. What a perversion of justice.

Delegates of the United Nations,

Will you accept this farce?

Because if you do, the United Nations would revert to its darkest days, when the worst violators of human rights sat in judgment against the law-abiding democracies, when Zionism was equated with racism and when an automatic majority could declare that the earth is flat.

If this body does not reject this report, it would send a message to terrorists everywhere: Terror pays; if you launch your attacks from densely populated areas, you will win immunity. And in condemning Israel, this body would also deal a mortal blow to peace. Here’s why.

When Israel left Gaza, many hoped that the missile attacks would stop. Others believed that at the very least, Israel would have international legitimacy to exercise its right of self-defense. What legitimacy? What self-defense?

The same UN that cheered Israel as it left Gaza and promised to back our right of self-defense now accuses us -my people, my country – of war crimes? And for what? For acting responsibly in self-defense. What a travesty!

Israel justly defended itself against terror. This biased and un just report is a clear-cut test for all governments. Will you stand with Israel or will you stand with the terrorists?

We must know the answer to that question now. Now and not later. Because if Israel is again asked to take more risks for peace, we must know today that you will stand with us tomorrow. Only if we have the confidence that we can defend ourselves can we take further risks for peace.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

All of Israel wants peace.

Any time an Arab leader genuinely wanted peace with us, we made peace. We made peace with Egypt led by Anwar Sadat. We made peace with Jordan led by King Hussein. And if the Palestinians truly want peace, I and my government, and the people of Israel, will make peace. But we want a genuine peace, a defensible peace, a permanent peace. In 1947, this body voted to establish two states for two peoples – a Jewish state and an Arab state. The Jews accepted that resolution. The Arabs rejected it.

We ask the Palestinians to finally do what they have refused to do for 62 years: Say yes to a Jewish state. Just as we are asked to recognize a nation-state for the Palestinian people, the Palestinians must be asked to recognize the nation state of the Jewish people. The Jewish people are not foreign conquerors in the Land of Israel. This is the land of our forefathers.

Inscribed on the walls outside this building is the great Biblical vision of peace: “Nation shall not lift up sword against nation. They shall learn war no more.” These words were spoken by the Jewish prophet Isaiah 2,800 years ago as he walked in my country, in my city, in the hills of Judea and in the streets of Jerusalem.

We are not strangers to this land. It is our homeland. As deeply connected as we are to this land, we recognize that the Palestinians also live there and want a home of their own. We want to live side by side with them, two free peoples living in peace, prosperity and dignity.

But we must have security. The Palestinians should have all the powers to govern themselves except those handful of powers that could endanger Israel.

That is why a Palestinian state must be effectively demilitarized. We don’t want another Gaza, another Iranian backed terror base abutting Jerusalem and perched on the hills a few kilometers from Tel Aviv.

We want peace.

I believe such a peace can be achieved. But only if we roll back the forces of terror, led by Iran, that seek to destroy peace, eliminate Israel and overthrow the world order. The question facing the international community is whether it is prepared to confront those forces or accommodate them.

Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the “confirmed unteachability of mankind,” the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the “want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”

I speak here today in the hope that Churchill’s assessment of the “unteachibility of mankind” is for once proven wrong.

I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history — that we can prevent danger in time.

In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.

The University of Minnesota (U of M) is the 4th largest campus in the US, with over 51,000 enrolled students. Founded in 1851, the U of M has never approved or endorsed any type of study abroad program to Israel. This may be surprising considering that the U of [...]]]>

TIME Magazine hits the stands today with its weekly issue – and with one explosive cover. I happen to be quite a fan of TIME – it is hands down one of my favorite publications – and I have been a regular reader for well over a decade. But [...]]]>

[View full article at TCJewFolk]

TIME Magazine hits the stands today with its weekly issue – and with one explosive cover. I happen to be quite a fan of TIME – it is hands down one of my favorite publications – and I have been a regular reader for well over a decade. But I have only one word for its brand-new cover – it is nothing less than vile. No, I take that back. I actually have two words. It is vile and antisemitic.

TIME’s cover story is boldly titled ”Why Israel Doesn’t Care About Peace.” The cover presents this outrageous title wrapped in a daisy-chain Star of David. How nice.

Personally, I find it rather incredible that after Israel had made peace with longtime bitter enemies Egypt and Jordan – giving up tremendous amounts of territory and oil reserves, and evacuating a large number of settlements in the process; after Israel withdrew from the Gaza strip – evacuating more settlements – to give the Palestinians a chance to start building a peaceful state of their own; after Israel offered an unprecedented amount of territory, including East Jerusalem for their capital, to the Palestinians in 2000; and after all this has been answered by nothing but decades of violence, bombs, and rockets against its civilians from Palestinians who still refuse to even put Israel on a map – after all this, the one thing TIME can manage to write at the start of another peace process is that Israelis do not care enough about peace? Really? That is the one notable thought that comes to mind?

And even if that truly is the only thought that TIME feels is worth commenting on at this junction in history – they could have used an Israeli flag on the cover, no? And this is where this cover morphs from just offensive, into straight antisemitism. A story on Israeli attitudes about peace – presented with a Star of David? The most-recognized, universal symbol for Jews? Forget those uncaring Israelis – it’s those war-mongering, uncaring Jews we all need to worry about, of course.

We hear time and time again these days how we should not lump the attitudes of one subgroup of a religion with the entire religion. But of course, that doesn’t apply to the Jews. Let’s make them all seem responsible for anything Israel does. Hey, Israel’s actions (and now apparently thoughts) justify violence against Jews in France all of the time, right? Why should we here be any better?

But I’ve said enough about the cover itself – let me now tell you a little bit about the story.

Read the rest of this article!