Kansas Governor Signs Bill Effectively Banning Shariah

The following article was posted by Newsmax on Friday, 25, May 2012

Republican Kansas Governor Sam Brownback signed a bill aimed at keeping state courts and agencies from using Islamic or other non-U.S. laws when making decisions, his office said on Friday. The law has been dubbed the “sharia bill” because critics say it targets the Islamic legal code. Sharia, or Islamic law, covers all aspects of Muslim life, including religious obligations and financial dealings. Opponents of state bans say they could nullify wills or legal contracts between Muslims.

Supporters said the law will reassure foreigners in Kansas that state laws and the U.S. Constitution would protect them. Opponents said it singled out Muslims for ridicule and was unnecessary because American laws prevail on U.S. soil.

Sherriene Jones-Sontag, a spokeswoman for the governor, said in an e-mail that the bill “makes it clear that Kansas courts will rely exclusively on the laws of our state and our nation when deciding cases and will not consider the laws of foreign jurisdictions.”

Legislators supporting the bill said there were many cases around the country where judges or state agencies cited sharia law in deciding cases, especially involving divorce-related custody and property matters where Islamic code differs from U.S. law.

The Council on American-Islamic Relations in Washington denounced the Kansas law and said it is considering legal action.

About 20 states have considered similar legislation but the Kansas law is the only one signed in recent weeks, council spokesman Ibrahim Hooper said.

Federal courts struck down an Oklahoma law voters approved in 2010 that barred state judges from considering sharia law in making decisions. The court called the law discriminatory.

Read more on Newsmax.com: Kansas Governor Signs Bill Effectively Banning Shariah Important: Do You Support Pres. Obama’s Re-Election? Vote Here Now!

Pulling the Mask from CAIR and The Muslim Brotherhood

Randy McDaniels is the Jacksonville Chapter Leader, South East Chapter Monitor, for ACT for America. He has shared the following with other chapter leaders across the country.

Terry Kemple, the author of this OP ED is our Local Coalition Leader opposing CAIR/HAMAS operatives speaking in Tampa Public Schools. He is a Christian, Head of the Tampa Community Issues Council, and a former and current School Board Candidate for the Tampa Public School system. This is a great article and one I am very surprised and pleased was actually published in contrast to the bias typically printed on this issue. Our efforts continue to grow and gain national press as the number attending board meetings continues to grow… and we will hopefully see similar efforts spreading across the state and nation.

Enjoy this short, accurate, and enlightening article by my friend and Christian Warrior Terry Kemple.

Link is below this pasted copy of the article:
The mission of the ministry I lead, Community Issues Council (CommunityIssuesCouncil.org), is: “To educate and unite the Church to be able to engage our community in the issues of the day.”

As president of CIC, I take in and evaluate the news, and then sound an alarm if it appears there’s a threat to the church’s ability to live out our faith. Often, these situations arise quickly and must be dealt with based upon the facts at hand.

Before sounding the alarm, I study the issue to be sure the reason for the alert is valid. Once the flow of information has been initiated, ongoing investigation is done so updates can continue to be sent to the people who receive CIC information.

In this case my initial research uncovered ample evidence to arouse significant concern. This led me to agree to take leadership of The Education Coalition (www.Secure-Our-Schools.com) to educate people in the Tampa Bay area about the threat posed by those whose objective is to impose Shariah law in America.

CIC’s educational emails have led more than 250 people to attend recent Hillsborough School Board meetings and prompted dozens of them to speak out. Their concern is about having representatives of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), or any organization that has been linked to the funding of terrorism, invited into our classrooms. It was also primarily CIC emails that brought about 80 concerned citizens out on a hot Saturday afternoon to protest an Islamic Society of North America (ISNA, another organization linked to the funding of terrorism) conference in Tampa two Saturdays ago.

These actions are based on facts. Here is a tiny sampling:
In 1928, after the breakup of the Ottoman Empire, the Muslim Brotherhood (MB) was founded in Cairo, Egypt, with two stated objectives: to impose Shariah as the law of the land throughout the world, and to establish a worldwide Muslim state.

The MB is using massive infusions of cash from oil-rich nations to forward its objectives.

The MB spawned many offshoot organizations that are primarily in two categories: violent jihadists like Hezbollah and Hamas, and cultural jihadists who use infiltration and indoctrination as the means to succeed in the MB’s two goals.

CAIR and ISNA are among these “cultural jihadists.”

Public statements, some subtle and some overt, made by founders and leaders of CAIR and ISNA are quoted in media across the country. They state their intention to fulfill the objectives of the MB in America.

CAIR and ISNA are unindicted co-conspirators in the Holy Land Foundation terrorist funding trial. CAIR and ISNA stipulated to the evidence presented against them in the Holy Land Foundation trial and tried multiple times to have their names expunged from the record of the trial. The judge refused, stating there was ample evidence to link both organizations to Hamas.

The stipulated evidence was legally acquired by the FBI in a wiretap of a meeting of MB leaders in 1993 and in a raid of a home of an MB leader in 2004. In this home they found the archives containing all the MB plans for replacing the Constitution with Shariah.

This same evidence was used to convict the first five co-conspirators indicted in the Holy Land Foundation trial on all 108 counts that were brought against them. Among the five were the head of the Texas chapter of CAIR and a leader in the national organization.

The 246 unindicted co-conspirators were to be indicted and tried in small groups. This plan was stopped when the Obama administration unexplainably quashed the prosecutions.

Among the next group scheduled to be indicted was Omar Ahmad. According to the FBI, Ahmad and Nihad Awad, the two founders of CAIR, are members of Hamas.

Numerous other leaders throughout the CAIR organization have been found guilty of terrorism-related charges.

Sue Myrick, chairwoman of the Congressional Counter-terrorism Committee, called CAIR “the propaganda arm for Hamas in America.”

Many people have fallen for the taqiyya (a type of lying that’s approved of in the Quran) that they’ve received from Hassan Shibly and other MB operatives. Taqiyya encourages them to lie to non-Muslims if it will forward their efforts to impose Shariah as the law of the land.

People throughout our culture have been seduced by it, including many in the media, as evidenced by several recent editorials.

Are We Losing America?

by Kathryn Jean Lopez

This is, or should be, the question of the hour – the question that ought to be at the center of our lives, drawing on and demonstrating our purpose.

All the more so now, during an election season in which the White House has instituted a policy that puts unprecedented limits on the constitutional right to freedom of religion.

A conference at the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, a Vatican think tank, yielded some related thoughts and warnings. The conference was convened in order to prepare for the 50th anniversary of Pope John XXIII’s encyclical Pacem in Terris. The Pontifical Academy was founded in 1994 and is meant to facilitate a continuing dialogue between faith and reason, and between the social sciences and the social thought of the Church. The latter provides – in the words of Mary Ann Glendon, President of the Pontifical Academy – “criteria for judgment” and “guidelines for action,” always keeping “the human person at the center of concern.”

To an American sitting in on the conference, some of its sessions amounted to a warning siren. A “religion of humanity” has taken hold of supposedly enlightened opinion and increasingly guides the judgments and actions, private and public, of people in the West, especially in Europe, cautioned Pierre Manent, a professor at the Centre de Recherches Politiques Raymond Aron. Manent continued,

This is not simply a fashion or opinion trend; it is a genuine large-scale project for governing the world through international rules and institutions, so that nations, losing their character as sovereign political bodies, are henceforth only ‘regions’ of a world en route to globalization, that is, unification. And, as formerly in the Communist conception of history, the is and the ought are regarded as coinciding: If you doubt that globalization is desirable, you will be told that it is irresistible and that you refuse to see reality; if you doubt that it is irresistible, you will be told that it is desirable and that you reject the evidence of the Good. In brief, ‘the world’ is presented to us as the supremely legitimate object of our desire. Such a proposition requires a serious effort of discernment.

“A religion of the absence of God is currently destroying and demoralizing the West,” Manent summed up.

He sounded his alarm at the same time as a full-scale political discernment of budgetary matters was beginning in the United States. The House Budget Committee chairman, Paul Ryan, has engaged in a debate over “social justice” that had long appeared to be a wholly owned subsidiary of the Left.

This is both important and relevant. We live in a country that has long safeguarded religious freedom, believing it to be a good for the life of the nation. But current government policy suggests something else. President Obama and his Administration have demonstrated a hostility to the free exercise of religion in the public square – except, that is, when it can be used to justify a policy dictated by the Left’s ideology regarding the size and scope of government.

EDITOR’S NOTE: While we do not agree with all that this conference proposed, yet the words of this woman need to be understood and heeded. America is turning away rapidly from the God of the Bible and its moral values, and in an atmosphere of toleration, secular humanism seems to be the religion of today! Read again II Chronicles 7:14!

Vidal Sassoon’s Zionist Legacy

Reprinted from HFT Connect

Israelis recently joined millions around the world in mourning the passing of celebrity hai

rstylist Vidal Sassoon, but likely for a different reason than most of his admirers.

Most people remember Sassoon for his “wash-and-wear” haircutting technique that revolutionized women’s hair fashion, as well as for his famous line of hair care products.

Fewer know that before he became a household name, Vidal Sassoon was battling Nazi anti-Semitism and defending the newly reborn Jewish state against invading Arab armies.

Sassoon was born to a Jewish family in London, but was sent to a local Jewish orphanage at age 3 when his father left. Sassoon left the orphanage at age 14 and became an apprentice hairdresser. It was around this time that Sassoon said his mother declared he

was to become a career hairdresser.

But he had other business to attend to first.

With World War II winding down, Sassoon joined a Jewish veterans’ group that combatted anti-Semitic fascist activity in London. A few years later, at the age of 20, Sassoon joined the Hagannah (the precursor to the Israel Defense Forces) and headed off to help defend the newborn Jewish state.

“That was the best year of my life,” Sassoon later said of his time in Israel. “When you think of 2,000 years of being put down and suddenly you are a nation rising, it was a wonderful feeling. There were only 600,000 people defending the country against five armies, so everyone had something to do.”

Upon his return to London, Sassoon resumed a hairstyling career that would eventually see him reach the pinnacle of the fashion world. But he never forgot what he was ultimately fighting for, nor the threats continuing to face his people.

In 1982, Sassoon returned to Israel to establish the Vidal Sassoon International Center for the Study of Anti-Semitism at Jerusalem’s Hebrew University. The Center continues to produce in-depth studies and surveys of global anti-Semitic trends. The Vidal Sassoon Foundation also regularly supports educational and cultural projects in Israel.

WND Exclusive, May 26, 2012

Two church denominations have rejected the practice of using words other than “Father” and “Son” when translating the Bible into languages in Muslim-dominated parts of the globe.

That’s according to a new report from Biblical Missiology, which has been raising the issue because of translations by the missionary groups Wycliffe Bible Translators, the Summer Institute of Linguistics and Frontiers that remove or modify terms that may be offensive to Muslims.

The translations have altered references to God as “Father” and to Jesus as the “Son” or “the Son of God.” One example can be seen in an Arabic version of the Gospel of Matthew produced and promoted by Frontiers and SIL.

It changes Matthew 28:19 from “baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit” to “cleanse them by water in the name of Allah, his Messiah and his Holy Spirit.”

Biblical Missiology issued a petition stating that Wycliffe and the others “are producing Bibles that remove Father, Son and Son of God because these terms are offensive to Muslims.”

Today, Biblical Missiology released a report that said Assemblies of God USA and Presbyterian Church of America study committees have released reports that will be used by their denominations to review the issue.

The Assemblies of God document said: “Our fellowship is unrelentingly committed to the authority and infallibility of Scripture. While we appreciate the challenges missionaries and translators face in intercultural communication, we will neither compromise nor dilute God’s eternal truth, nor change its intended plain meaning. We, therefore, urge all believers to reject these and any other Scripture translations, whether for Muslim or non-Muslim audiences, for both public and personal use, that do not literally translate Father and Son terminology.”

Like the AOG document, the PCA study team’s recommendation refers to Biblical Missiology’s materials on the subject.

The PCA team recommends: “Bible translations geared for Islamic contexts should not be driven by concerns that Muslims may recoil from biological terms applied to God or Jesus. That revulsion originates primarily out of religious conviction, not any communicative limitation of the terms themselves. The essentially biological terms (Hebrew, ben and ab; Greek, huios and pater) are divinely given and therefore should be translated into comparable biological terms. Footnotes, parentheticals and other paratextual comments may be used to explain the biblical and theological riches of Scripture, while never subverting the important truths embedded in the biological contours of Scripture’s words.”

The Biblical Missiology report said the PCA will discuss the study’s findings at its annual meeting in June. The Assemblies of God will postpone any decision until the end of 2012 to await a review by the World Evangelical Alliance.

Both reports, Biblicial Missiology said, “affirm the ministries that have ‘faithfully and sacrificially translated the Holy Scripture” but have reservations about current events.

Biblical Missiology reported earlier that the new translations also were being rejected by the Alliance of Protestant Churches in Turkey.

A statement from the Turkish church leaders said: “As leaders of local Protestant churches, the misleading translations of these very important and foundational New Testament terms to be wrong and extremely adverse. We most certainly cannot approve of it.”

WND previously reported that Wycliffe Bible Translators, which says it changed some references to “Son of God” and “Father” in an Arabic Bible translation for accuracy, is allowing an outside review of its translations in the Muslim world.

Wycliffe agreed to a review of its policies by the World Evangelical Alliance, a network of evangelical church alliances in 128 nations, which plans to set up a panel of experts on the issue.

WND broke the story earlier about the dispute and then reported again later when Wycliffe said, through Wycliffe Global Alliance American consultant Mary Lederleitner, that the issue “hinges on whether or not one believes that using the most common term in a receptor language in translating the familial terms for God (Father, Son of God, Son) is the only acceptable translation or whether – in the minority of cases when the most common term conveys inaccurate meaning – there are times when other terms (terms which maintain the concept of familial relationships but are not the most common term) can be used.”

Wycliffe has defended the changes, saying, “The titles are not removed, but are preserved in a way that does not communicate incorrect meaning. The issue is not that the Greek term is offensive to Muslims, rather the issue is that – unfortunately – for some readers, traditional translations may imply that God has sex with women and give readers the impression the translation is corrupt.”

Many evangelical mission leaders, former Muslim converts and indigenous Christians from countries where the translations are being used were indignant. After numerous appeals were rejected, a petition was launched calling for the end to the translations.

Biblical Missiology said the Turkish organization of Christians was not the first to object to the translations.

“The Bengali church has taken a large stance against the Islamized translations and the Insider Movement that Islamizes the church,” the organization reported.

Malaysian Christians has also made a statement opposing the new changes.

“As a church in a Muslim majority country, we are concerned that there are currently movements to remove all reference to God as ‘Father’ and His Son, our Lord Jesus Christ as ‘Son of God’ on the translation of the Holy Scripture to the local language,” said a letter from Moko Chen Liang, the general secretary of the Presbyterian Church in Malaysia, to Presbyterian leaders in the U.S.

15,000 Gather to Apply Shariah in U.S.

This is a WND Exclusive

Shariah law is famous for making headlines in the West over its penalties, such as beheadings and amputations; its treatment of women and the violence that is allowed, and its relegation to those who follow other faiths to a subservient status.

Now, it seems, there’s a new move to expand its influence in the United States, with a weekend conference in Hartford, Conn., on “Understanding Shariah” and “how to apply Shariah in a society where most people are not of the same faith.”

Ads by Google Turning 65 or Retiring? Get the Facts, Learn About Your Medicare Options & Get a Free Gift www.Healthnet.com Will You Boldly Proclaim “I am a Christian”? Sign the pledge now! billygraham.org/I-am-a-Christian The conference is being assembled by the Islamic Circle of North America, which earlier was revealed through a campaign by Stop Islamization of Nations, to be trying to “mainstream Shariah.”

Officials say they expect some 15,000 to attend the events at the 37th annual ICNA convention.

“Muslims need to be educated about Shariah,” said Naeem Baig, the organization’s vice president for public affairs, in announcing the events.

“There’s a need for the community to better understand what Shariah means to us, and how to apply Shariah in a society where most people are not of the same faith,” he said.

Get a hands-on instruction book on how to stop the advance of Shariah in your city, in “Stop the Islamization of America.”

The conflict between Shariah and Western justice, which was outlined nearly a millennium ago in the Magna Carta and enshrined in the U.S. Constitution, has been on the rise recently.

The result has been a move among states, including Arizona, Oklahoma, Missouri, South Dakota, Tennessee and Kansas, to make statements that would prevent American jurisprudence from taking a back seat to the dictates of the Islamic religious law in American courts.

Baig called the concern “a deep-down hatred of Muslims” and said, “They don’t want to see Muslims in America.”

See what people should be doing in the battle, in “Stop the Islamization of America: A Practical Guide To The Resistance.”

ICNA said many of the convention programs focus on educating Muslims about Shariah, and the “myths” about Shariah.

But the Stop Islamization of Nations campaign is buying ad space for a billboard calling on Americans to learn the dark side of Islamic law.

The effort’s leader, Pamela Geller, says her group has one real purpose – to counter the impact of the pro-Shariah billboard campaign of the Islamic Circle of North America, an alleged Muslim Brotherhood front organization.

Geller pointed out that captured internal documents indicated ICNA is a Muslim Brotherhood group.

“Muslim Brotherhood groups in America are trying to … mainstream Shariah,” Geller warned.

The billboard will lead people to the Refuge from Islam site.

“The Muslim Brotherhood group ICNA needs to lie to Americans about Shariah and advance a false narrative about the most extreme and radical ideology on the face of the earth. Period,” Geller said.

“They don’t want Americans to know the truth that the gendercide of honor killings, the clitorectomies, the stonings, and the 1,400 years of cultural annihilations and enslavements (that) are all Shariah-mandated,” Geller said.

“We need to counter this campaign publicly. We must educate America and arm freedom lovers with facts,” Geller said.

Geller said Muslims have to take a bold step to truly become Americans.

“The U.S. should be calling upon Muslim groups in America to renounce and reject Shariah if they want to be American citizens,” Geller said.

It was ICNA’s Kansas City pro-Shariah billboard that suggested the response. The Shariah promotion says,”Shariah: Got questions? Get answers? Call 1-855-Shariah.”

Jihad Watch publisher and Islam analyst Robert Spencer said the ICNA campaign is an effort to muddy the waters on Islam.

“ICNA is trying to whitewash Shariah, to hoodwink Americans into thinking that concerns about it are all due to ‘misconceptions’ that can easily be cleared up,” Spencer said.

Spencer added that any inquiries about Shariah’s darker side will receive soft replies.

“I expect that if any inquirers asked about stonings, amputations, the denial of the freedom of speech, freedom of conscience, and equality of rights for women and non-Muslims, they’ll be told that none of that is really part of Shariah,” Spencer said.

“ICNA’s goal is to foster complacency and ignorance about Shariah on the part of Americans,” Spencer said.

The very idea of Shariah is antithetical to the freedoms on which America was based, many have concluded. WND columnist Diana West was writing about a new book, “Marked for Death: Islam’s War Against the West and Me.”

For that book, Geert Wilders unearthed some statements revealing the Founding Fathers’ perspective on Islam. She wrote:

“In 1916, Roosevelt observed: ‘Wherever the Mohammedans have had a complete sway, wherever the Christians have been unable to resist them by the sword, Christianity has ultimately disappeared.’

“Roosevelt rejected as ‘naïve’ the notion that ‘all religions are the same.’ Some religions, he explained, ‘give a higher value to each human life, and some religions and belief systems give a lower value.’”

And, she noted, “John Quincy Adams wrote that Muhammad ‘poisoned the sources of human felicity at the fountain, by degrading the condition of the female sex, and the allowance of polygamy; and he declared undistinguishing and exterminating war as part of his religion, against all the rest of mankind. THE ESSENCE OF HIS DOCTRINE WAS VIOLENCE AND LUST; TO EXALT THE BRUTAL OVER THE SPIRITUAL PART OF HUMAN NATURE.’”

Explained West, “The capital letters are Adams’, by the way, and the source Wilders draws from is ‘The American Annual Register of 1827-28-29,’ where Adams published unsigned essays in 1830 (listed in Lynn H. Parsons’ annotated bibliography of Adams’ works) in between his tenure as president and his return to Congress.”

Left in Panic Over Bain Attack Backfire

(Washington Post) – Despite a growing backlash from his fellow Democrats, President Obama has doubled down on his attacks on Mitt Romney’s tenure at Bain Capital. But the strategy could backfire in ways Obama did not anticipate. After all, if Romney’s record in private equity is fair game, then so is Obama’s record in public equity — and that record is not pretty.

Since taking office, Obama has invested billions of taxpayer dollars in private businesses, including as part of his stimulus spending bill. Many of those investments have turned out to be unmitigated disasters — leaving in their wake bankruptcies, layoffs, criminal investigations and taxpayers on the hook for billions. Consider just a few examples of Obama’s public equity failures:

● Raser Technologies. In 2010, the Obama administration gave Raser a $33 million taxpayer-funded grant to build a power plant in Beaver Creek, Utah. According to the Wall Street Journal, after burning through our tax dollars, the company filed for bankruptcy protection in 2012. The plant now has fewer than 10 employees, and Raser owes $1.5 million in back taxes.

● ECOtality. The Obama administration gave ECOtality $126.2 million in taxpayer money in 2009 for, among other things, the installation of 14,000 electric car chargers in five states. Obama even hosted the company’s president, Don Karner, in the first lady’s box during the 2010 State of the Union address as an example of a stimulus success story. According to ECOtality’s own SEC filings, the company has since incurred more than $45 million in losses and has told the federal government, “We may not achieve or sustain profitability on a quarterly or annual basis in the future.”

Worse, according to CBS News the company is “under investigation for insider trading,” and Karner has been subpoenaed “for any and all documentation surrounding the public announcement of the first Department of Energy grant to the company.”

● Nevada Geothermal Power (NGP). The Obama administration gave NGP a $98.5 million taxpayer loan guarantee in 2010. The New York Times reported last October that the company is in “financial turmoil” and that “[a]fter a series of technical missteps that are draining Nevada Geothermal’s cash reserves, its own auditor concluded in a filing released last week that there was ‘significant doubt about the company’s ability to continue as a going concern.’ ”

● First Solar. The Obama administration provided First Solar with more than $3 billion in loan guarantees for power plants in Arizona and California. According to a Bloomberg Businessweek report last week, the company “fell to a record low in Nasdaq Stock Market trading May 4 after reporting $401 million in restructuring costs tied to firing 30 percent of its workforce.”

● Abound Solar, Inc. The Obama administration gave Abound Solar a $400 million loan guarantee to build photovoltaic panel factories. According to Forbes, in February the company halted production and laid off 180 employees.

● Beacon Power. The Obama administration gave Beacon — a green-energy storage company — a $43 million loan guarantee. According to CBS News, at the time of the loan, “Standard and Poor’s had confidentially given the project a dismal outlook of ‘CCC-plus.’ ” In the fall of 2011, Beacon received a delisting notice from Nasdaq and filed for bankruptcy.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. A company called SunPower got a $1.2 billion loan guarantee from the Obama administration, and as of January, the company owed more than it was worth. Brightsource got a $1.6 billion loan guarantee and posted a string of net losses totaling $177 million. And, of course, let’s not forget Solyndra — the solar panel manufacturer that received $535 million in taxpayer-funded loan guarantees and went bankrupt, leaving taxpayers on the hook.

Amazingly, Obama has declared that all the projects received funding “based solely on their merits.” But as Hoover Institution scholar Peter Schweizer reported in his book, “Throw Them All Out,” fully 71 percent of the Obama Energy Department’s grants and loans went to “individuals who were bundlers, members of Obama’s National Finance Committee, or large donors to the Democratic Party.” Collectively, these Obama cronies raised $457,834 for his campaign, and they were in turn approved for grants or loans of nearly $11.35 billion. Obama said this week it’s not the president’s job “to make a lot of money for investors.” Well, he sure seems to have made a lot of (taxpayer) money for investors in his political machine.

All that cronyism and corruption is catching up with the administration. According to Politico, “The Energy Department’s inspector general has launched more than 100 criminal investigations” related to the department’s green-energy programs.

Now the man who made Solyndra a household name says Mitt Romney’s record at Bain Capital “is what this campaign is going to be about.” Good luck with that, Mr. President. If Obama wants to attack Romney’s alleged private equity failures as chief executive of Bain, he’d better be ready to defend his own massive public equity failures as chief executive of the United States.

Source: http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/forget-bain-obamas-public-equity-record-is-the-real-scandal/2012/05/24/gJQAXnXCnU_story.html

Israel Revives Military Option after Obama Rejects its Nuclear Demands of Iran

A fateful decision is reached on Iran

DEBKAfile Exclusive Report May 24, 2012

A fateful decision is reached on Iran. Israel has withdrawn its pledge to US President Barack Obama not to strike Iran’s nuclear sites before the November presidential election after he rejected its minimal demands for nuclear negotiations with Iran. This is reported exclusively by DEBKAfile’s Washington sources. In public, Israeli ministers still talk as though they believe in results from the Six-Power talks with Iran, which Thursday May 24 limped into their second day in Baghdad with the parties still miles apart. But the presidential veto has essentially cast Israel outside the loop of influence on the outcome of diplomacy.

When Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak met US Defense Secretary Leon Panetta at the Pentagon on May 17 he was told that Obama had rejected Israel’s toned-down demands for Iran to at least to halt high-grade uranium enrichment, export its stocks of material enriched higher than 3.5 percent grade and shut down production at the Fordo nuclear plant near Qom. For six months, the Obama administration tried to sweeten the bitter pill of this rejection by bumping up security aid. The latest appropriation covered another $70 million for manufacturing more Iron Dome short-range missile interceptors. After talking to Panetta, Barak turned to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and National Security Adviser Tom Donilon in the hope of winning their support for softening Obama’s ruling. Clinton replied she was not involved in the negotiations with Iran and Donilon, that a personal decision by the president was not open to change.

A week of consultations followed the defense minister’s return home, during which it was decided to tear up Israel’s pledge to refrain from attacking Iran during the US presidential campaign. Wednesday, May 23, the day the Baghdad talks began, Barak signaled Washington to this effect.

It was conveyed in a little-noticed early morning radio interview with the defense minister. To make sure his words reached the proper address without misunderstandings, the defense minister’s office issued a verbatim English translation from the Hebrew:

“There is no need to tell us what to do, and we have no reason to panic. Israel is very, very strong, but we do know that the Iranians are accomplished chess players and will try to achieve nuclear capabilities. Our position has not changed. The world must stop Iran from becoming nuclear. All options remain on the table.”

As the Baghdad talks went around in circles, Israel’s military option was put back firmly on the table and on the US-Iranian chessboard.

Editorial Note: This doesn’t look very encouraging, Hillary an Panetta just don’t get it. Israel has little or no option now but to follow through with their tentative strike on Iran’s nuclear sites within the next few weeks or months. America, Israel, Europe, the Middle East and the rest of the world will soon live with the uncertain consequences. Even so, the Church will continue to pray for God’s will.

What About Jewish Refugees?

By Israel Today Staff

The issue of “Palestinian refugees” is often brought up as one of the major sticking points of the Israeli-Arab conflict. But just as often ignored (at least by the likes of the UN) is the fact that there were even more Jewish refugees produced by the 1948 Israeli-Arab war.

Over the course of the past 100 years, there have been numerous refugee exchanges as a result of major conflicts. Greece and Turkey exchanged ethnic refugees in order to not prolong their own conflict. The same happened between Pakistan and India.

Israel sought to do the same by fully absorbing and integrating the 850,000 Jews who were booted from the Arab nations round about and their millions of descendants.

Israel’s Foreign Ministry insists that for a genuine and lasting peace to be achieved, this fact must be acknowledged, and the Arabs must adopt a similar approach. Below is the text of a Foreign Ministry resolution recently published in Jerusalem:
Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim countries Between 1948 and 1951, about 850,000 Jews were expelled or forced out of Arab nations, and became refugees. Between the late 1940s and 1967 the vast majority of the Jews from Arab countries were uprooted from their lands of birth. Up until the present day, an injustice was done to the Jewish refugees from Arab and Muslim countries. Their property rights and their historic justice were abandoned.

During various efforts and talks in pursuit of peace between Israel and the Palestinians, negotiators have overlooked an important element pertaining to the Arab-Israeli conflict – the uprooting of around 850,000 Jews living in Arab nations, the loss of their assets and property, and the difficulties they underwent upon migrating to Israel and their absorption.

Close to half of Israel’s Jewish citizen’s today, including their descendants, came from Arab countries. Thus during the attempt to resolve the conflict through a political process, which will resume at some point in the future, this issue should be expanded, raised to the forefront, and addressed from every angle.

Thriving, prosperous Jewish communities existed in the Middle East and North Africa a thousand years before the rise of Islam and more than 2500 years before the birth of the modern Arab nations. These communities, which extended from Iraq in the east to Morocco in the west, enjoyed a lively fabric of life and were influential in the local economies. Until the 10th century C.E., 90% of the world’s Jews lived in regions now known as Arab countries.

Between the late 1940s and 1967 the vast majority of the Jews from Arab countries were uprooted from their lands of birth, most of the Jewish communities in these countries had vanished, leaving behind a few thousand Jews scattered throughout a small number of cities.

Even before the Partition Plan of November 1947, increasing hostile measures were taken by the Arab nations, led by the Arab League, against their Jewish communities. Following the Partition Plan, Arab governments started confiscating Jewish property. Simultaneously riots and massacres broke out against the Jewish communities throughout the Arab world. Jewish-owned stores and synagogues were looted and burned, hundreds of Jews were killed and thousands were imprisoned.

As Israel was established as an independent state in May 1948, the Arab League Political Committee convened and drafted a series of recommendations for all Arab and Muslim countries on how to take action against the Jews in their countries. Among other recommendations, the citizenship of Jews was revoked, and they were henceforth considered citizens only of the newly established Jewish state. Their assets were confiscated, their bank accounts frozen, and property worth millions of dollars nationalized. Jews were barred from government ministries, their entry in to the civil service was severely restricted, and many lost their means of livelihood.

The anti-Jewish trend only increased over time, and an organized plan of oppression and persecution was implemented against Jews in Arab states. Between 1948 and 1951, about 850,000 Jews were expelled or, as explained above, forced out of Arab nations, and became refugees. In fact, a two-way migration of populations began, along with the creation of two different refugee groups. The Arab nations, led by the Arab League, were responsible for causing both groups of refugees, Jews and Palestinians. The ratio between the two refugee groups was 2:3, with the Palestinian group numbering around 600,000 as opposed to the Jewish refugees, which numbered about 850,000 (up until 1968), and their descendants now account for about one half of the population of the State of Israel.

Another important aspect of this subject is that of lost property. A 2008 study estimated that the ratio of lost property stands at almost 1:2; the Palestinian refugees lost property totaling roughly 450 million dollars (in today’s prices around $3.9 billion) whereas the Jewish refugees lost property totaling 700 million dollars (around $6 billion dollars). The Arab nations, led by the Arab league, perpetuated the refugee problem (except for Jordan, which conferred citizenship on its Palestinian citizens), as opposed to Israel which integrated the Jewish refugees and saw to their rehabilitation. The Palestinian refugees’ situation was also perpetuated by the international system through UNRWA, the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East, which has no mandate to find sustainable solutions for the Palestinian refugee problem. According to the criteria set by the UN regarding the definition of a refugee, the Jewish refugees are considered full-fledged refugees, and when the Security Council passed Resolution 242 in November 1967, no differentiation was made between Palestinian and Jewish refugees. The Palestinian refugees had their refugee status perpetuated, while the Jewish refugees from Arab countries engaged in building new lives for themselves.

The issue of Jewish refugees in the Middle East came up as far back as the 1970s, and was spearheaded at the time by former MK Mordechai Ben-Porat, among others. The first relevant organization to be established was WOJAC – the World Organization of Jews from Arab Countries. Later JJAC – Justice for Jews from Arab Countries – was founded, and near the time of the Annapolis Conference it exposed UN documents proving that the Arab League nations planned and employed an organized program of oppression and persecution against Jews in Arab countries following the establishment of the State of Israel. Accordingly, claims JJAC, hundreds of thousands of Jews should be recognized as refugees exactly as the Palestinians are.

During the Camp David peace talks of 2000, President Clinton announced that if an agreement would be reached, then an international fund should be established to compensate the refugees, both Arab refugees and Jewish refugees from Arab countries. Clinton’s proposal was seconded some years later by the U.S. House of Representatives’ decision in April 2008 which stated that Jewish refugees should be recognized as refugees by the UN Convention, and so an international fund should be set up to compensate Jewish and Palestinian refugees for the loss of their property. This House of Representatives decision, known as House Resolution 185, determined that one refugee population problem should not be resolved without also resolving the second refugee problem at the same time.

Nevertheless, the issue of Jewish refugees was pushed to the sidelines of the international debate. In February 2010 the issue did gain recognition in Israel, with the legislation of the Law for Preservation of the Rights to Compensation of Jewish Refugees from Arab countries and Iran, passed by the Knesset.

The law upholds safeguarding the rights of Jewish refugees from Arab states. According to law, the State of Israel is obligated to make sure that any negotiations for peace in the Middle East include the subject of compensation for the Jewish refugees as well. At the same time, the National Council for Jewish Restitution, chaired by Rafi Eitan, was established under the auspices of the Ministry for Senior Citizens which was given the task of advising the government and the Prime Minister regarding the issue of restitution.

The Foreign Ministry, led by the Deputy Minister, has promoted this issue in the governmental, public diplomacy and media arenas. During the 60 year celebrations of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (December 2011) DFM Ayalon spoke in the United Nations plenum in front of the international community. DFM Ayalon raised the issue of Jewish Refugees from Arab countries, the need for historic Jewish justice and providing a solution for the lost assets of the Jewish refugees. During the event DFM Ayalon held an international media briefing where he showed a video which deals with issue of Jewish refugees, the historic injustice and the problem of perpetuating Palestinians as refugees.

Furthermore, DFM Ayalon wrote a number of articles on the subject that were published in the media such as The Guardian and the Jerusalem Post.

Summary and Recommendations

  1. A true solution to the issue of refugees will only be possible when the Arab League will take historic responsibility for its role in creating the Jewish and Palestinian refugee problem, as documented.
  2. There should be a joint solution between the Arab countries and the international community in order to provide compensation for both Palestinian and Jewish refugees. In order to achieve this goal an international fund will be created that will be based on President Clinton’s suggestion from 2000 and the Congress resolution 185 from 2008 in which Israel will also take part, even only in a symbolic way. This fund will also compensate the countries that had already been working on absorbing and rehabilitating refugees; amongst others Jordan and Israel (retroactively) and perhaps Lebanon if it is willing to rehabilitate the descendants of Palestinian refugees in its territory. The fund will also deal with the issue of Jewish property that is still in the hands of Arab and Muslim countries, however the so-called Right of Return will not be relevant as the Jews are not interested in returning to the places from which they were deported from. The State of Israel will not accept the principle of a Palestinian “right of return” but will prefer to provide compensation by an authorized third party. This demand has historic precedents as in the case of Cyprus.
  3. Our embassies and diplomatic delegations around the world are requested to act with Parliaments in their host countries in order to adopt a resolution in the spirit of House Resolution 185 from April 1, 2008 which determines that the definition of a refugee applies also to the Jewish refugees who were pushed out of Arab countries.
  4. The issue of Jewish refugees should be raised in every peace negotiation framework whether it is opposite the Palestinians or Arab governments.
  5. The Palestinian refugees will be rehabilitated in their place of residence just as the Jewish refugees were rehabilitated in theirs – Israel. There should be an immediate discontinuation of the perpetuation of the Palestinian refugee issue.
  6. The rehabilitation process in their place of residence will minimize the demand for the “right of return” during peace talks and in any case the insistence of some Palestinian refugees to be given a right of return will be resolved by their immigration into the future Palestinian state that will be established through a peace agreement.
  7. During the peace negotiations (with the Palestinians or Arab countries) the demand for financial compensation for both Palestinian and Jewish refugees should be raised.
  8. The Foreign Ministry, led by Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, will lead a Hasbara campaign on the issue of Jewish refugees in coordination with the PM’s office which will consolidate the issue into any future negotiations.
  9. As part of the negotiation framework, all of Israel’s delegations around the world will be directed to distribute and to pass along these messages to any governmental body and public diplomacy forum in their host country.
  10. Israel’s delegations around the world will also be directed to approach Jews from Arab countries that reside in their host country in order to have them speak on this issue.