Please Help Me Remove F Israel Page From Facebook

please sign this petition to remove the F#$% Israel page from FB. 

Its disgusting that this is even allowed to be created, but it exists.  


Full History Of Israel and Conflict W/ Palestine

This is an absolute must read for anyone who wants to educate themselves on how Israel was established, the conflict between Israel and Palestine and where it comes from. 

Also it highlights how the UN and Countries involved seem to forget that they were the ones who established the state of israel, which is now 22% of the original British Mandate, yet the Palestinians deserve the land of israel as well, the Jewish State didn’t sacrifice enough?  The IDF is called the “Israel Attack Force” it makes me sick.

These people do not want peace they pretend to because it serves their cause, yet Israel is positioned as the Enemy by the media in general and this will have devastating consequences if not changed. 


Please Join Me in Signing This Petition to Stop Iran

United with Israel, a fantastic organization, is organizing a petition to show Washington and the UN that the people they represent are not ok with easing sanctions on Iran.  A nuclear Iran is not only a danger to Israel, but to the rest of the world as well.  Please take 2 minutes and sign the petition, and if possible follow up by writing your congressman as I have.  There is a tool in the link to the petition below which will help you find your representative and even assist you with the content.  I cannot stress how important this is we need to show Obama and Kerry that Israel is important to the people of this country even if it isn’t important to them.

Here’s how to find your congressman:

Failed Peace Talks Will Hopefully Shed New Light on The Conflict (I doubt it)

The present and culminating political dead-end may hopefully evoke more reasonable thinking.


Dr. Mordechai Nisan

Dr. Mordechai Nisan, is a retired lecturer in Middle East Studies at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.Among his books is The Conscience of Lebanon: A Political Biography of Etienne Sakr (Abu-Arz). His most recent book is Only Israel West of the River: The Jewish State and the Palestinian Question, available at


When the present Israeli-Palestinian negotiations fail, and the mutual accusations ricochet against the diplomatic walls of acrimony, will a shred of simple truth be spoken?  The bitterness of mutual recrimination, squabbling over responsibility and guilt, will recall earlier degenerate diplomatic efforts, as in 2000 and 2007.

Tzipi Livni and Saeb Erekat will appear disconsolate, Netanyahu and Abbas defiantly sober-minded. John Kerry will declare the failure but a pause on the long road, before the renewal of another round of useless negotiations.

This silly and maddening ritual of trying to put the square peg in the round hole is an insult to common sense and national pride. Israel, the military victor from 1967, has no compelling reason to withdraw (further) from its tiny homeland; and the Palestinians, who turned terrorism into the art of diplomacy, can expect no major gains any longer. Arafat, the alchemist shaman, is no longer around to outwit the naive and obstruct the path to peace.

The sacred mantra of ‘two states west of the Jordan River’ is a formula for conflict and war, not reconciliation and stability. There is insufficient land and water; too many intersecting roads and insurmountable military/security points of contention; no possible agreement on refugees and Jerusalem; and hardly an ounce of the necessary elixir – mutual trust.

The last three American presidents in particular, in their support of a Palestinian state and pursuit of the two-state solution, appear driven more by a subliminal obsession than guided by rational policy-making.

In the history of international conflicts and wars, there is never any guarantee that any agreement reached will be permanent. The Middle East and the Arab world have proven to be politically fertile terrain for a plethora of broken pacts and unfulfilled promises, as the various member-countries of the Arab League disputed, unified and divided incessantly over the decades. Note the dialectical aphorism: ‘treat your friend as if he will become your enemy and your enemy who may become your friend’.

A New Peace Paradigm

When the talks fail, and no Israeli-Palestinian diplomatic breakthrough occurs, we should reflect on the deep-seated religious animosity and political incompatibility between Jews and Arabs.

Israel must never lose sight of her vulnerable narrow coastal strip and critical importance of the Jordan Valley line; the dangerous exposure of her sole major international airport to proximate enemy attack; to the deep revulsion most Arab citizens feel toward the(ir) state of Israel; and no less and the first of all principles, the fact that this is the Hebrew Homeland for which Jewish identity, dignity, and history demand remains in the hands of its true sons and daughters.

The Palestinians, for their part, portray a pathetic self-image of victimology while bound to a culture of revenge. They lavish praise on their martyr-murderers and erase Israel from their maps of Palestine.  Having lost all the battles, they still believe they will win the war.

Their tribal-like pride leaves no room for political compromise; and this is a people, or non-people, destined to romanticize its history and succumb to its delusionary dreams. The Palestinians are not able to ‘liberate Palestine’ though even if they ever get a state – rogue, terrorist, irredentist, and Islamic – it can’t last. Inevitably the exuberant Palestinians would provoke Israel and threaten and abuse her territorial and political integrity.

In a moment of recovery, Israel’s forthright response will terminate the Palestinian project and return the Palestinians to point zero.

The present and culminating political dead-end may hopefully evoke more reasonable thinking. The option of Jordan-is-Palestine, the only viable alternative to the quagmire of exhausted and tattered alternatives, should be explored in earnest. It was, in fact, proposed generations ago with Transjordan designated as the location for the Arab state of Palestine. Here is the missing component of the political puzzle and the jammed political process: Jordan as Palestine, and only Israel west of the river.

When the ongoing talks fail, like previous ones in the Oslo process for the last twenty years, politicians, statesmen, mediators, and negotiators will again be offered another chance to launch a major shift in history by adopting a truly equitable and realistic peace paradigm.

*Dr. Mordechai Nisan, author of “Only Israel West of the River“, recently interviewed on Arutz Sheva, is a retired Hebrew University lecturer on Israel and the Middle East.

Is John Kerry Dillusional or just Antisemitic?

The UC Berkeley student government has banned the term “illegal immigrant” from its discourse, deeming the phrase racist, offensive, unfair and derogatory.  In an unanimous vote, student senators passed a resolution that stated the word “illegal” is “racially charged,” “dehumanizes” people, and contributes to “punitive and discriminatory actions aimed primarily at immigrants and communities of color.”…Its approval marks at least the second time this semester that a public university’s student government has voted to eradicate the phrase. UCLA passed a nearly identical measure in late August.

And I hereby ban the use of “illegal settlement” from all discourse.


But will Secretary of State John Kerry comply? 


Here’s an excerpt from the official transcript of his recent interview:


SECRETARY KERRY: …Now, the Palestinian leadership made it absolutely clear they believe the settlements are illegal, they object to the settlements, and they are in no way condoning the settlements. But they knew that Israel would make some announcements. They knew it, but they don’t agree with it, and they don’t support it...We do not think you should be doing settlements. We, the United States, say the same thing. We do not believe the settlements are legitimate. We think they’reillegitimate. And we believe that the entire peace process would, in fact, be easier if these settlements were not taking place. Now, that’s our position. That is also the position – but we knew that there was not going to be a freeze. We didn’t negotiate a freeze. So there’s a difference here between knowing something may happen and objecting to it. The Palestinians profoundly object to it. The international community objects to it. The United States policy has always been that the settlements are illegitimate, and we believe this process would be much easier if we didn’t have the tension that is created by settlements. 

Let me ask you something: How – if you say you’re working for peace and you want peace and a Palestine that is a whole Palestinian that belongs to the people who live there, how can you say we’re planning to build in the place that will eventually be Palestine? So it sends a message that somehow perhaps you’re not really serious. Now, we understand the pressures that exist, and we understand that within the government there are people who have a different view. So until you arrive at a peace agreement, that issue will not be settled. If you arrive at a peace agreement, everybody will understand where Israel is and everybody will understand where Palestine is.

The first is that if previously in 2009 I had hoped that the use of the term “illegitimate” was meant to distinguish American policy from that of the Arabs in that the question of legal, or not, was to be avoided because we Jews could make a very good case that we a quite legal, this seems to have dissipated.

The second is that Kerry supports apartheid.  If we Jews can’t construct communities and that they must be dismantled, then Jews can’t live in a “Palestine that belongs to the people who live there”.  “Palestine” is to be Arab, Arab only.

Mr. Secretary, can Israel then be only Jewish?

After all, Mr. Secretary, there are almost two dozen Arab states (UNESCO identifies 21 Arab states, while Wikipedia lists 23 Arab states. In addition the Arab League is a regional organization of these states that was formed in 1945. It currently has 22 members).

Why can’t there be one Jewish state, with an Arab minority?

Or, why must Palestine by bereft of its Jews?


I can’t believe I’m saying this, but I want Hilary back as secretary of state….

Obama and Kerry are ruining the relationship between the US and Israel, the problem is the only voices speaking out against this are in Israel, and their voices don’t make it here to America.  Its pretty amazing what has gone on under the nose of the “media” (Obama tools for obscuring the truth).  

Terrorist Attack Thwarted as IDF Seizes Anti-Tank Weapon

In another sign that the situation in Judea and Samaria is heating up, IDF troops on Monday arrested an Arab terrorist who was found to have in his possession a Carl Gustav recoilless rifle, a military-grade weapon used to take out tanks and armored vehicles. The 84 calibre automatic weapon has a range of up to 1,000 meters, and can utilize high explosive ammunition.


The weapon is far more sophisticated than those carried by the average terrorist. Amir Lazover, the commander of the unit that discovered the weapon, said that the terrorist was stopped at a checkpoint, where soldiers discovered the weapon. Large forces of troops were called in, as were members of the bomb squad.


There is no doubt, Lazover said, that the terrorist was on his way to conduct a major attack. “We were able to stop a terror attack,” he said, adding that the incident made clear that the terrorists were checking to see whether IDF soldiers were remaining attentive to the situation in Judea and Samaria.


Last week, US Secretary of State John Kerry “threatened” Israel with a new intifada if it did not agree to withdraw from most of Judea and Samaria, as the Palestinian Authority demands. In an interview withChannel 2 television, Kerry said that there would be “chaos” and a “third intifada” if Israel’s “peace talks” with the Palestinian Authority (PA) fail. “Failure of the talks will increase Israel’s isolation in the world,” Kerry said. “The alternative to getting back to the talks is a potential of chaos. I mean, does Israel want a third intifada?”

Israeli leaders slammed the comments, saying they amounted to incitement and warning such rhetoric could become a self-fulfilling prophecy.


Lazover said that, currently, there was no third intifada developing. “There has not been an increase in the number of security incidents in recent weeks, but the quality of these potential attacks have increased,” he said.

Up2DateOnIsrael – Shabbas Week in Review Update – (From now on this will come on Friday afternoons)


-Criticism of John Kerry and his approach to the recent “Peace Talks”.  My theory is that the US is insane and they just can’t find another approach.  Definition of insanity being doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.  The biggest problem is every time the US makes this mistake the Israelis are forced to give more and more concessions (releasing terorirsts, giving up land, etc)  While continuously funneling money to the PA.  

*This is the most important article of the week and maybe the year, something must be done about this and it is a MUST READ if there ever was one.

– The NYT is pressing an Anti-Israel ideology on its readers and something must be done about this.  I think considering a boycott of the NYT is in order and I want to get the conversation started. – This article is about a new book which quotes President Obama calling the Israeli prime minister a pain in the ass.  Just more evidence he is anti-Israel.

Finally Obama and John Kerry are doing their best to destroy the relationship between Israel and the United States.  Allies must have a level of trust and understanding and that was built between the US and Israel over the past century and Obama and Kerry are doing EVERYTHING to destroy it.  (No I don’t think its completely on purpose, they just fail to see the truth of the situation)

The EXTREME Antisemitism of The New York Times (Via CAMERA)

A CAMERA Op-Ed in Times of Israel showed how New York Times reporters besmirch Israel’s leaders by injecting negative commentary into news articles. “Shrill,” “strident” and “derisive” were pejorative adjectives used by Times news reporters to describe the Israeli prime minister’s review of anti-Jewish violence by Palestinians since the 1920’s. Their condemnation of Mr. Netanyahu’s reference to Palestinian violence and anti-Jewish hatred is paralleled by their own refusal to report fully on the topic. In fact, The New York Times has come under harsh criticism from CAMERA for turning a blind eye to the glorification of terrorism and violence against Jews on government-sponsored Palestinian television.

True, every couple of years the newspaper runs an article that ostensibly focuses on Palestinian anti-Israel indoctrination. But not only do these articles ignore the worst examples of Palestinian incitement, they inevitably soft-pedal the entire issue, pretending that it is fueled by Israel in order to prevent peace negotiations, or that it is part of a bilateral phenomenon, with Israelis sharing the guilt– something that is clearly not the case. The bottom line is that The New York Times refuses to report the simple truth about Palestinian hate speech and indoctrination to violence.

Take, for example, The New York Times’ latest article about Hamas high school textbooks, entitled “To Shape Young Palestinians, Hamas Creates Its Own Textbooks.” Correspondents Fares Akram and Jodi Rudoren note that
Among other points, the [Hamas text]books, used by 55,000 children in the eighth, ninth and 10th grades as part of a required “national education” course of study in government schools, do not recognize modern Israel, or even mention the Oslo Peace Accords the country signed with the Palestine Liberation Organization in the 1990s.

The most disturbing aspect of these textbooks, however, is not only that they teach Palestinian children to reject modern Israel and the Oslo peace accords, but that they instruct youth in the use violence against Israelis and promote such attacks as benefitting the Palestinian people . According to the Palestinian news agency Ma’an, the new books include “lessons about various methods of Palestinian resistance.”

When Hamas talks of “Palestinian resistance” it means one thing — the murder of Israeli civilians for political gain, or, more accurately, terrorism. That Hamas is using high school text books to promote terrorism comes as no surprise to those who follow MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch’s documentation of Palestinian TV broadcasts and speeches. There, terrorism is routinely glorified, and terrorist leaders urge the Palestinian public to “slit throats,” wreak destruction” “harvest the skulls of the Jews” and “annihilate the Zionist entity.”

But this sort of graphic genocidal rhetoric is not what The New York Times wishes to present to its readers, so it avoids ever making mention of such unpleasantries. It also avoids clearly pointing out that the new Hamas textbooks encourage and legitimize the use of terrorism against Israelis. Instead, the article acknowledges in one sentence that the books are “part of a broader push to infuse the next generation with its militant ideology” without spelling out what this “militant” ideology entails. Such direct terms as “suicide attack,” “abduction,” “bombing,” and “terrorism,” are eschewed in favor of words like “battle,” “riots,” “uprising,” and even “resistance” to describe Palestinian attacks against Israelis and Jews.

To its credit, the article does mention Hamas’ denigration of Jewish religious texts, denial of Jewish roots in the country, description of Zionism as a racist movement, expansionist vision of Palestine that encompasses all of present-day Israel, and exaggeration of Hamas’ military achievements, but, at the same time, it downplays the entire issue as a bilateral phenomenon.

According to the Times, the textbooks are an example of “dueling narratives” in a fight over territory, used as a propaganda tool by Israel to withstand American pressure to reach a peace deal. The reporters assert:

Textbooks have long been a point of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, in which dueling historical narratives and cultural clashes underpin a territorial fight. And they are central examples of what Israeli leaders call Palestinian “incitement” against Jews, held up as an obstacle to peace talks newly resumed under American pressure.


This passage follows the newspaper’s overall pattern of downplaying Palestinian hate speech in what is already minimal coverage of the issue, by casting it as a debatable Israeli accusation in a longstanding fight. The last time the newspaper ran an article about the topic, in December 2011, it was headlined and framed as Israelis “finding fault” with Palestinians. That article focused more on attacking the credibility of and motives behind Israeli charges of incitement than it did on providing examples of Palestinian incitement.


It is telling that in this article, as well, The New York Times places the word “incitement” in quotation marks, qualifying it as a claim by Israel. In this way, the newspaper continues to avoid presenting the issue as straight, unvarnished fact. Nor does it accept the concept that Palestinians are guilty of terrorism. In sharp contrast to their qualification of the use of the word “incitement,” reporters adopt Hamas’ justifying parlance as their own to describe terrorist attacks, notably without the use of quotation marks. They assert:

Hamas has added programs, like a military training elective introduced in high schools last year that focuses on resistance to Israel.


There is no qualification of the word “resistance” — the word preferred by Hamas to justify its attacks against Israel. The same double standard is evident elsewhere, as well. Where Mr. Netanyahu’s exposure of historic Arab violence against Jews in an earlier article was labeled “strident” and “derisive,” the demonization of Israel and Jews in Hamas textbooks is characterized far less vehemently as “questionable treatment of Israel and Jews.”

Thus, in the topsy turvy world of the New York Times, Israeli exposure of Palestinian wrongdoing is “contentious” “shrill” or “derisive” while Palestinian terrorism against Jews is simply  “resistance to Israel.”


I think it may be time to start a campaign to boycott The New York Times, we can not stand for this type of media bs.  These little things are what make the big difference, the one word in a headline, the extreme adjective, I for one will not be reading the NYT and I hope you join me.  Please respond in the comments if you think a boycott of the NYT is a good idea to point out the issue of Anti-Israel media bs, and to get the NYT to change their tune.