The Fallout Of A Fraudulent Conversion....And This Is Just The Beginning....

Jared & Ivanka:  An Embarrassment to "Judaism" - (And The Corrupt Rabbis That Conducted This Hoax ...) 

THE MAN RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS FRAUDULENT CONVERSION

by Sherwin Pomerantz is a native New Yorker, who lived and worked in Chicago for 20 years before coming to Israel … [More]

Last weekend in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump demonstrated for all of us the real meaning of chillul haShem, desecrating God’s name.

The first instance was the trumped up story that some rabbi gave them permission to travel with President Trump on his flight from Washington which left there on Friday and arrived in Riyadh on Shabbat.  The phantom rabbi has not been identified but, presumably, it was the same person who gave them permission to ride around Washington on January 20th to attend the inauguration balls that evening. 

The second instance was in Riyadh itself on Shabbat, where video records of the President’s meetings there showed Jared and Ivanka getting in and out of vehicles to attend those very same meetings.

Now one might ask what the big deal is. They are not the first Jews in politics who were or are seen not observing the Sabbath.  That, of course, is true and while it may bother us from time to time, we know that not every Jew observes all of the strictures of Jewish law.

But in their case they trumpet their orthodoxy to the world and wear it as a badge of honor.  When politicians choose to do that they perforce take on themselves an obligation not to break the Sabbath and do whatever they can to ensure that they are shomre Shabbat, that is Sabbath observers as Jewish law dictates.  Everyone knows that there is no orthodox Rabbi who would give permission to ride on the Sabbath except in circumstances of pikuach nefesh, such as the need to save a life or some similar emergency such as defending oneself from imminent attack.

One could argue, for example, that given the fact that the inauguration parade in January ran into the Sabbath, it would not have been safe for them to have walked home and, as such, it was permissible to ride.  But to go to the inauguration balls that followed on Friday night?  To ride around Riyadh on the Sabbath to attend meetings with the Saudi king?  Do they not realize the shame they brought on the Jewish people for not being observant of their own faith?  Does anyone think for a moment that the Saudis would have scheduled such meetings on Friday?  Or that this message of chillul haShem was lost on the Saudis?

Yet, even more critical is the message that this sends to the luckless Jew working in a business in Little Rock, Arkansas, for example, who tells his boss that in the winter he needs to leave work early to be home for Shabbat.  And his boss’ answer?  “I really don’t understand, the president’s daughter and son in law are observant and they get permission to work on the Sabbath, why can’t you?”

When I was going through officer training in the US Army so many years ago, Jewish officers had to attend a special session with the Jewish chaplain.  One of the lessons he taught (at that time they were all “he’s”) was that whether or not we were personally observant we needed to be careful what we did and did not do on Shabbat because our conduct could negatively influence how a religious enlisted person would be treated by his superior when a request came up not to work on Shabbat.  

Regardless of our individual observance levels once we thought about it we knew that the advice was spot on.

Jared and Ivanka can choose to be non-observant and do whatever they want to do vis-à-vis Jewish practices and, while I wish it would be otherwise, I can live with that.  Or, as they claim to do, they can choose to be compliant with Jewish law as the Orthodox interpret it, but then they have to stick by it.  No phantom dispensations, no mockery of the faith and no shortcuts.  It is their choice but, once they make it and brag about it, their choices are limited to what is generally accepted as permitted.

Roy Disney once said “When your values are clear to you, making decisions becomes easier.”  It is an axiom that the Kushners would do well to learn so that they don’t continue to be an embarrassment to those who try to live their Jewish values truthfully every day.

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/jared-ivanka-an-embarrassment-to-judaism/

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein states the very marriage of a gentile woman to a non observant Jew, is equivalent to an open declaration that she will not observe the precepts. This is so, because it is highly unlikely that the gentile member of such a union, will be more committed to Judaism than her remiss Jewish husband...

 READ:

http://theunorthodoxjew.blogspot.com/2017/05/rabbi-moshe-feinstein-states-very.html

Rabbi David Bleich on the Conversion Crisis - Considered by Most Jewish Scholars as a Posek of the Greatest Stature

The questions posed with regard to problematic contemporary conversions are threefold in nature:

  READ:

http://theunorthodoxjew.blogspot.com/2017/03/rabbi-david-bleich-on-conversion-crisis.html

When Rabbis Become Prostitutes - The Redefining of an Orthodox Jew - "Jared every year sends a $500 check before Passover to one of his former day school teachers “as a gesture of appreciation... "

 READ:

http://theunorthodoxjew.blogspot.com/2017/02/when-rabbis-become-prostitutes.html

Jared Kushner & Ivanka Trump In Church on Friday and Shabbos! Trump's Conversion Farce Must Be Repudiated, Rebuked & Delegitimized by Every Orthodox Rabbi! Kabbalat Shabbos With Jared & Ivanka! Israel & The Jewish People Have Every Reason To Be Concerned About Kushner's Total Rejection of Core Jewish Values (מומר להכעיס) , and In Essence, Contemptuous Conduct.

READ:

http://theunorthodoxjew.blogspot.com/2017/01/jared-kushner-ivanka-trump-in-church-on.html

Trump's "Piece" Process Begins.... Jewish Land For Worthless Pieces Of Paper and Promises.....

US said pushing Israel to transfer parts of West Bank to PA administrative rule

Economic incentives insufficient; Americans reportedly want Netanyahu to do more to revive peace talks; PMO denies TV report

A red sign on the side of a road warns Israeli citizens from entering the West Bank city of Nablus on July 29, 2015. 

 

The administration of US President Donald Trump is said to be pressing Israel to transfer parts of the West Bank to Palestinian administrative control as a goodwill gesture to help revive peace talks between the two sides.

Despite a series of economic incentives approved on Sunday by the Israeli cabinet, the US wants to see greater concessions to the Palestinian Authority and views the recent measures as insufficient, Channel 10 reported Wednesday. 

Specifically they have asked for areas in the northern West Bank to be transferred from Area C to Area B, according to the report.

Under the Oslo Accords, Area C of the West Bank (60%, where most of the settlements are located, and some 150,000 Palestinians live) is under full Israeli administrative and military control, while in Area B (22%), administrative control is the responsibility of the PA while the IDF is in charge of security. Area A (18%, encompassing the major Palestinian cities) is under the full administrative and military control of the Palestinian Authority.

The Prime Minister’s Office later denied the Channel 10 report.

President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu 

It was not immediately clear when the US supposedly made these demands, but US Secretary of State Rex Tillerson told reporters on Wednesday aboard Air Force One that Trump “pressured” both Netanyahu and PA President Mahmoud Abbas during his meeting with the two leaders this week to return to the negotiating table.

It was also not known what concessions the US sought from the Palestinians during Trump’s trip to help restart the peace process.

During his visit to Israel and the West Bank on Monday-Tuesday, Trump repeatedly emphasized his desire to help broker a peace agreement between Israelis and Palestinians, but offered little in how he would encourage the two sides to revive peace talks.

Trump has repeatedly said he was looking to broker the “ultimate deal” with Israelis and Palestinians and is convinced he could do so. Trump has tasked his son-in-law Jared Kushner, and former real estate lawyer Jason Greenblatt with charting a course forward. Still, White House officials had downplayed the prospects for a breakthrough on this trip, saying it was important to manage their ambitions as they wade into terrain that has tripped up more experienced diplomats.

US President Donald Trump delivers a speech at the Israel Museum in Jerusalem on May 23, 2017. (AFP Photo/Menahem Kahana)

In a speech Tuesday at the Israel Museum, the president heaped praise on Israel, while calling on both sides to make compromises toward peace. He urged them to put aside the “pain and disagreements of the past” and declared that both sides were ready to move forward.

The president notably avoided all of the thorny issues that have stymied peace efforts for decades. He did not mention Israeli settlements, the status of Jerusalem or even whether the US would continue to insist on a two-state solution giving the Palestinians sovereign territory.

In a meeting with opposition leader Isaac Herzog on Tuesday, Kushner said Washington intended to move fast to advance a renewal of peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, a spokesman for Herzog said, with Trump’s envoy Jason Greenblatt reportedly set to return next week so as not to leave a “diplomatic vacuum.”

In a separate report Wednesday, Channel 10 said that Israel’s National Security Council is currently considering a plan to transfer control of two East Jerusalem neighborhoods from the Jerusalem Municipality to a yet-to-be established local council.

http://www.timesofisrael.com/us-said-to-be-pushing-israel-to-transfer-parts-of-west-bank-to-pa/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Does Trump have new ideas? If he does, we were still waiting to hear what they are as he departed for Europe.

President Donald Trump touches the Western Wall on May 22.

Hopeful rhetoric, vague vision for peace after Trump’s Middle East visit

BY Shmuel Rosner | PUBLISHED May 23, 2017 | Rosner's Domain

---

President Donald Trump has come and gone from his trip to the Middle East, his first foreign excursion since taking office earlier this year. He arrived — first in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, then Jerusalem and Bethlehem in Israel — with strong words about Iran as the neighborhood bully and, like so many American presidents before him, buoyant words for the Israeli and Palestinian people.

Optimistic words. Hopeful words. They all conveyed a vision and new possibility for peace in the region, a prospect “I’ve heard,” he said, that is “one of the toughest deals of all. But I have a feeling we will get there eventually, I hope.”

Good for Trump. A new American president. A new chance for a solution. A new team to get it done. 

But where were the new ideas Israeli leaders are so certain he has? What is the new approach? How does he propose to untangle the thorny issues on the ground — boundaries, settlers, Jerusalem, etc. — that have left so many presidents before him bloody with failure?

Peace between Israelis and Palestinians was a topic of much discussion when Trump visited Jerusalem and Bethlehem. It was front and center, but not necessarily the first item on the agenda. In his speech to the Arab world in Riyadh days before, in his unscripted photo-op with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, in his later remarks in the prime minister’s house, Trump was more focused on Iran as the source of menace in the region. He and Netanyahu suggested that there are new opportunities in the region. Countries must unite against a common threat — Iran. That’s an opening that can be explored.

Michael Oren, historian, former Israeli ambassador to the United States and currently Israel’s deputy minister for diplomacy, said he believes that this new reality is a conduit of a “tremendous” shift. If once it was assumed that a peace with the Palestinians could lead to reconciliation of Israel with the rest of the Arab world — the situations is now reversed: A peace with the Arab world could lead to a deal with the Palestinians. If the Saudis come on board, if other Gulf states come on board, if the Arab world realizes that fighting against Israel makes no sense in this era of radicalism, the Palestinians might realize that the train of peace is leaving the station and that they’d better hurry so they don’t miss it.

Maybe this is what Israeli leaders mean when they constantly talk about “new ideas.” Trump is a devotee of “new” ideas, “bold” ideas, “different” ideas. For Israel, to resist his push for a deal would be a mistake. But it might be able to convince him that his predecessors failed because of their conventional thinking — and that he, a man bold enough, ought to reformulate the meaning of the ultimate deal. The “two-state solution” is old, tired — and it is so Clinton and Obama. Trump could make his mark by thinking outside of the box, that is, by dropping old ideas and replacing them with new ideas. 

Israeli President Reuven Rivlin sang the praises of new ideas after his meeting with Trump: “Our destiny — Palestinians and Jews — is to live together in this land,” he said. “In order to achieve this, we need new ideas, new energy that will help us move forward, together.” 

But move where? Rivlin has his new ideas; he supports one state, or a confederation of Israelis and Palestinians. Naftali Bennett, the head of the Jewish Home Party and the leader most forthright in attempting to directly tell Trump what needs to be done (“We expect you to be the first president to recognize a united Jerusalem,” he said, to which Trump responded, “That’s an idea!”), has different new ideas. He supports an autonomy for Palestinians and annexation of the rest. Other leaders also have new ideas, including the oldest “new” idea of sticking to an improved status quo. 

Does Trump have new ideas? If he does, we were still waiting to hear what they are as he departed for Europe. It was worth noting that Trump refrained from using the term “two-state solution” during his visit. It is possible that he is more open than his predecessors to considering alternative ideas, assuming he has them. In Saudi Arabia, in Jerusalem and in Bethlehem, he kept hinting that his deal is partially built on the goodwill of the conservative Arab regimes of Jordan, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Former President Bill Clinton failed to get them on board at Camp David. He was disappointed by their refusal to help him push the late Yasser Arafat, chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization, toward accepting the deal that was offered to him. Trump and some of his top advisers believe circumstances have changed in a way that could make such a push more realistic today.

His brief trip was barely a beginning of a long process of exploration of these assumptions and ideas. Although it sent a symbolic message of involvement and new energy, it did little to advance a detailed vision of a peace process. And of course, involvement is crucial, as both Arab and Israeli leaders made clear in their remarks, taking a swipe at the Barack Obama administration.

“We are happy to see that America is back,” said Rivlin, usually not the type to bash the former president. Netanyahu, not surprisingly, was more direct: “I want to tell you also how much we appreciate the reassertion of American leadership in the Middle East.”

The new American president ought to know that there is no correlation between the number of visits to the Middle East and the level of success in handling Middle East affairs. Yes, Trump made “history” — a word used much too often to describe routine events — in going to Israel and Saudi Arabia earlier in his term than any other president. He made “history” again by being the first sitting American president to visit the Western Wall. So what? Nixon made history by being the first president to travel to Israel. Shortly afterward, he was forced out of office. Clinton made history by coming to Israel more than all other presidents, four times. It did not guarantee his success. 

The only presidential visit that really made a change was Jimmy Carter’s in 1979. That was a dramatic visit, with ups, downs and crises. It was a make-or-break visit: Carter traveled to Egypt, then to Israel, and forced the hand of the late Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin to accept the peace deal that was proposed to him. A few years ago, Israel’s state archives released documents from that visit, including a cable that was sent from Zvi Rafiah, Israel’s then-liaison to the U.S. Congress. Carter briefed congressional leaders when he was back in Washington, D.C., and Rafiah reported to his superiors in Jerusalem that during this meeting, Carter described his meeting with the Israeli cabinet as “terrible.”

“Terrible” and “horrible” are two of Trump’s favorite words. So maybe he will also describe parts of his visit as terrible. Maybe he did not appreciate the food, or the heat, or the forced selfie with Knesset Member Oren Hazan. But as far as we know, by the end of his visit on May 23, nothing truly “terrible” happened. Everybody was nice to him. Everybody agreed with him. Everybody encouraged him to keep doing what he is doing, whatever that is.

A time for confrontation might still come, when a more detailed plan emerges, and a real price is demanded of the parties. Already, Israel and the Palestinians got a taste of the future. Israel watched reluctantly, yet silently, as the Saudis bought weapons in quantities that might put Israel’s military edge at risk. The Palestinians witnessed an American president visiting the Kotel. They heard an American president, not for the first time, raise the issue of terrorism as an obstacle they need to overcome to achieve their objectives. They heard him say “peace” but not “a Palestinian state.”

And so. There was a visit and it went smoothly. For Trump, that is certainly an achievement. Everybody was trying to convince everybody that the visit was successful and that Trump is exactly what they expected him to be. 

But there was reason for caution. On the evening of May 22, about an hour before Trump and Netanyahu made their joint statement in Jerusalem, I was sitting in a radio studio in the city of Modi’in. The interviewee on the line was Member of Knesset Ahmad Tibi, an Arab legislator, an articulate critic of Israel’s policies, and a frequent visitor at the offices of Mahmoud Abbas, the Palestinian president. 

He was cautious. Very cautious. Wisely cautious. Tibi has hopes, but he isn’t letting them get too high. He knows Trump changes his mind, he said. He knows it is not yet clear what Trump wants, beyond the generalities of having a “deal” and brokering “peace.” He knows Trump won’t always have the patience necessary to see a bumpy peace process through. And so Tibi’s message was simple: I’ll believe him about his Israeli-Palestinian peace effort when I see it.

When I asked Tzachi Hanegbi, Israel’s communications minister, about Trump reportedly walking back on his campaign promise to move the American embassy to Jerusalem, Hanegbi didn’t even blink before explaining that a visit to the Western Wall is much more important than moving the embassy. And when Tibi was asked if he was annoyed by Trump’s visit to the Kotel, Tibi didn’t even blink before explaining that it was an insignificant event that reinforced the fact that the U.S. does not recognize the site as Israeli.

Despite what did and didn’t happen, give Trump credit for this: He was polite, almost gaffe free and vague enough to keep the valuable posture of a Rorschach test: for now, all interpretation of his actions and intentions are still in the eye of the beholder. 

http://jewishjournal.com/rosnersdomain/219408/hopeful-rhetoric-vague-vision-for-peace-after-trumps-middle-east-visit/

HEY GOD - WHERE'S YOUR NOTE TO ME?

History Repeating Itself - Arming The Terrorists!

 

"....What was missing was any hint of a rebuke to the Saudi theocracy for its toxic behavior. By every measure, Saudi Arabia is among the most despotic countries on earth. Freedom House, the venerable human-rights watchdog, has for years given Saudi Arabia its worst possible rating. The government “restricts almost all political rights and civil liberties through a combination of oppressive laws and the use of force,” Freedom House notes in its 2017 report.
 

Political parties are forbidden, and organized political opposition exists only outside the country. Political dissent is criminalized. Activists who challenge the kingdom’s record on political inclusion or call for constitutional changes are treated harshly. . .

Islam is the official religion, and all Saudis are required by law to be Muslims. A 2014 royal decree punishes atheism with up to 20 years in prison. The government prohibits the public practice of any religion other than Islam. . . .

Women are not treated as equal members of society, and many laws discriminate against them. They are not permitted to drive cars . . . and must obtain permission from a male guardian in order to travel within or outside of the country. . . .

The religious police enforce a strict policy of gender segregation and often harass women, using physical punishment to ensure compliance with conservative standards of dress in public.

But there was no suggestion in Trump’s address that Saudi Arabia’s brutal repression is of particular concern to the United States. Nor was there any mention of the fact that Saudi money is deployed worldwide to promote Wahhabism, the fundamentalist strain of Islam that fuels extremist intolerance. (It wasn't so long ago that Trump himself called Saudi Arabia "the world's biggest funder of terrorism.)

Rather than allude to any of that, the president flattered his hosts. He praised their “encouraging statement of tolerance, respect, empowering women, and economic development.” He assured them that he had not come “to lecture [or] to tell other people how to live.” The words “freedom,” “liberty,” and “democracy” didn’t cross his lips. He said nothing of the kingdom’s prisoners of conscience, scores of whom are publicly whipped or beheaded each year.

Trump might have put his bully pulpit to better use. He could have urged clemency for Raif Badawi, the pro-democracy blogger who was sentenced to 1,000 lashes and 10 years in prison for the crime of defending free speech and pluralism on his website, the Saudi Free Liberals Forum. Badawi’s cause has been championed by 18 Nobel laureates, by Amnesty International, by a bipartisan group of U.S. senators. But not by President Trump.

At most, Trump’s remarks in Riyadh — carefully read off a Teleprompter, with few ad libs — were a wash. He was clear on the menace of radical Islam, which was to the good. But he was equally clear about his unwillingness to deploy American power, even the power of American ideals, to crush that menace....."

 Via Jeff Jacoby ---The Boston Globe

US–Saudi Arabia AWACS Sale

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The sale of AWACS (Airborne Warning and Control System) surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia by the United States administration of President Ronald Reagan was a controversial part of what was then the largest foreign arms sale in US history. The sale saw objections from a majority of Americans, prominent US Senators, the State of Israel and the Israel lobby.^[1]

The sale included the five E-3 Sentry AWACS aircraft and eight KE-3 refueling aircraft, with spare parts and support, delivered between June 1986 and September 1987.^[2]

Contents

• 1 AWACS
• 2 Reaction in the United States
• 3 Considering Israel
• 4 Winning support
• 5 US arms sale to Saudi Arabia, 2010
• 6 See also
• 7 Further reading
• 8 Notes

AWACS

USAF E-3 Sentry in flight

The United States Air Force began using the E-3 Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft in 1977 following ten years of prototype design, development, and testing.^[3] The U.S. currently has a fleet of 32 E-3s, the largest in the world. NATO possesses 17, the United Kingdom has seven, Saudi Arabia has five, and France has four.^[4]

The E-3 is a modified Boeing 707 commercial jetliner characterized by the strikingly large thirty-foot rotating antenna mounted on its roof. This antenna can detect and track other aircraft within an area of 175,000 square miles (450,000 km²), flying at any altitude or over any terrain, allowing the AWACS to detect aircraft that remain hidden from ground radar.^[5] The planes' mobility is a crucial feature, providing for the use of this sophisticated detection equipment whenever and wherever needed; AWACS can be deployed quickly into military conflict "regardless of intensity" according to Boeing, who claims AWACS are the "world’s standard for airborne early warning systems."^[6]

The Saudi AWACS bear Arabic writing on their exterior with a translation below, "Royal Saudi Air Force". The roof-mounted antenna is an AWACS plane’s dominant feature; it is a smooth black disk with a white stripe down the center, and it rotates constantly. The antenna is about a fifth of the length of the plane and it sits higher above the roof than the plane’s roof sits above the ground. Another noticeable difference from a commercial 707 is the lack of passenger windows. Colonel Walt Kowalik said about the lack of windows, "We don't want 'em ... we don't want our people looking out of windows. We want them concentrating on what's in front of them."^[5] An Associated Press writer described blue carpet and "subdued" lighting, "as in a movie theatre."^[5]
 

Reaction in the United States

Only months old, the Reagan Administration announced its plans to sell five of the U.S.-made AWACS to Saudi Arabia. The proposal, part of the largest foreign arms sale ever^[7] was not received warmly on Capitol Hill where Congressional consent was required. The AWACS proposal was also harshly rejected by Israel and disapproved of by a majority of Americans. Upon formal introduction of the AWACS proposal to Congress in the fall of 1981, many Senators reacted coldly. "This is one of the worst and most dangerous arms sales ever," proclaimed Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy. Senator Donald Riegle said, "We are being asked to submit to a kind of blackmail; the price gouging of oil."^[8] These Senators feared that the AWACS sale was not designed to promote stability, as would be claimed by the Administration, but to secure U.S. oil resources. Such a deal would mean technology for oil access, and as Kennedy said, a potentially dangerous deal at that. Senator Bob Packwood, who as a Republican was a member of Reagan’s party, was also a leader of opposition to the AWACS deal in the Senate. Packwood spelled out the danger he saw in arming Saudi Arabia:

"They have displayed a hostility that must be interpreted as their deliberate intentions to promote continued instability in the Middle East." Packwood questioned the choice of Saudi Arabia as an arbiter of peace saying, "Let’s think about which nations have been seriously committed to negotiating peace in the Middle East and which have not shared that commitment."^[9] With the recently ended American hostage crisis in Iran fresh in mind, Americans were reluctant to sell military equipment to anyone. In fact, a May 1981 poll showed that 52% of those surveyed opposed arms sales to any country, and only 19% wanted the U.S. to sell AWACS to Saudi Arabia.^[10]

Considering Israel

Israel, feeling its security directly threatened, was the most strongly opposed to the AWACS deal of anyone involved. Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin expressed "profound regret and unreserved opposition" to the Saudi AWACS proposal.^[11] Experts on Israeli defense said that AWACS could track every move of the Israel’s air force, denying it the chance to launch a "surprise first strike, the basis of Israeli defense doctrine."^[11] While Israel's "unreserved opposition" was based on the real security threat it faced, its "profound regret" could have been rooted in perceived betrayal by the United States. A protector of Israel since the Six-Day War, the U.S. was planning to sell military surveillance planes to Saudi Arabia, a country hostile towards Israel. A Boston Globe editorial from May 4, 1981 recognized this contradiction as well as other threats posed by the AWACS sale, noting, "the intention to sell AWACS planes to Saudi Arabia constitutes not only a manifest contradiction of Reagan's campaign promise to enhance Israel's security, but also serves to further destabilize the Mideast, a region whose stability was supposed to be a strategic priority of the Reagan foreign policy." The sensitivity of Congress to the threats against peace and stability, was matched by its sensitivity to Israel's concerns.

The Reagan Administration actively sought to diminish Israel's voice and influence over the deal. In public speeches, Administration officials admonished Israel for getting involved in a U.S. foreign policy matter. Secretary of State Alexander Haig said the President must be "free of the restraints of overriding external vetoes," and went on to say that were the AWACS deal blocked by Israeli influence, there would be "serious implications on all American policies in the Middle East. ... I'll just leave it there."^[8] Reagan himself declared, "It is not the business of other nations to make American foreign policy."^[12]

Winning support

In order to gain support for the AWACS deal in Congress and in the country, the Administration lobbied strongly on behalf of it. Though it continually stated the AWACS deal would benefit US "interests" in the Middle East, the Administration also gave promises of the AWACS planes' importance in securing peace. In a speech to Congress, Alexander Haig said that if the AWACS sale was blocked, "our security, the security of Israel and peace itself (might) be endangered,"^[13] Reagan himself promoted the AWACS sale saying, "By contributing to the stability of the area, it improves Israeli security."^[12] The Administration even commissioned former government officials to speak about AWACS as part of the peace cause. Richard Nixon's Secretary of State Henry Kissinger said "it is essential for the peace process in the Middle East."^[14] Congress approved the AWACS sale, and as part of the then-largest arms export ever, the planes were a symbolic commitment to the US/Saudi relationship.

US arms sale to Saudi Arabia, 2010

 

On October 20, 2010, the US State Department notified Congress of its intention to make the biggest arms sale in American history—an estimated $60.5 billion purchase by Saudi Arabia, trumping the former US-Saudi AWACS sale. The package represents a considerable improvement in the offensive capability of the Saudi armed forces. Israel did not raise objections to the sale, except to say that it was "not thrilled about it." At the time, a senior administration official stressed: "This is a big development, because it's part of a larger regional strategy and the maintenance of a strong US presence in the region. We're paying attention to the needs of our allies and what everyone in the region believes is a flexing of muscles by a more aggressive Iran. One way to deal with that is to make our allies and friends strong."<sup>[15]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US%E2%80%93Saudi_Arabia_AWACS_Sale</sup>

The path they advocate is no less delusional than that of abused children who blame themselves for the abuse they experience. All too often such children doom themselves psychologically to lives of self-abnegation and misery.

The Psychology of Jews Who Embrace Their Enemies

 

Interview Series: Psychiatrist-author Kenneth Levin: "Those of the Jewish community who live and work in environments hostile to Israel, commonly embrace the anti-Israel bias around them. And they often insist they are being virtuous by doing so." 

  “A number of Jews and Israelis embrace criticism coming from anti-Semites and extreme anti-Israelis. They have many precursors in the lengthy history of the Jewish Diaspora.


“This phenomenon reveals great similarity, at the level of human psychology, to the response of children subjected to chronic abuse. Such children tend to blame themselves for their suffering. In their helpless condition, they have two alternatives. They can either acknowledge they are being unfairly victimized and reconcile themselves to being powerless, or they can blame themselves for their predicament. The attraction of the latter - ‘I suffer because I am bad’ - is that it serves the desire of being in control, fantasies that by becoming ‘good’ will elicit a more benign response from their tormentors. Both children and adults invariably seek to avoid hopelessness.”

In The Oslo Syndrome, Levin explains the attitude of Israeli self-haters: [There is] “a wish to believe Israel is in control of profoundly stressful circumstances over which, unfortunately, it has no real control. Genuine peace will come to the Middle East when the Arab world, by far the dominant party in the region, perceives such a peace as in its interest. Israeli policies have in fact, very little impact on Arab perceptions in this regard, much less than the dynamics of domestic politics in the Arab states and of inter-Arab rivalries.”

Levin adds now: “Popular hatred for Israel, which is fanned by Arab governments, education systems, media and Muslim clerics, runs deep in Arab opinion. This is not a totally isolated phenomenon, but fits into a much broader framework. Since the earliest days of the existence of the Arab-Muslim world, there has been widespread animosity against both religious and ethnic minorities in the region. It would be a mistake to attribute, for instance, the pressure on Christian minorities exclusively to the rise of Islamic fundamentalism. Popular Muslim-Arab hostility has also led to pressures on non-Arab Muslims such as the Berber populations in North Africa.

“While those Jews and Israelis who embrace anti-Jewish arguments typically do so in the hope of ingratiating themselves with the Jews’ enemies, they will rarely acknowledge this motive. Rather, they typically claim that their position reflects a higher moral or ethical position.

“In the past and present, a common claim by anti-Semites has been that Jews are interested exclusively in their own well-being. This has led many Jews to focus their energies on broader social causes, even as the Jewish community suffered unique disabilities. Jews who take this course typically do not admit they are doing so to avoid being accused of Jewish parochialism. Rather, they claim to be righteously transcending narrow concerns to address more universal needs.

“During World War II, particularly after the Nazi extermination program was revealed in late 1942, many American Jewish leaders sought to raise public awareness of the plight of Europe’s Jews and promote rescue efforts. Yet they also limited their campaign out of fear of arousing public anger over Jewish concern with a Jewish issue, and they often rationalized their doing so as reflecting devotion to the greater patriotic task of winning the war. It was largely non-Jewish voices which insisted the Nazi extermination program was not only a crime against the Jews but a crime against civilization and all of humanity and therefore should be of concern to everyone.”

Levin observes: “In the last sixty years, the American Jewish community at large has energetically embraced support for Israel. This has been made much easier by the fact that the wider American public has traditionally been sympathetic toward the Jewish state.

“On the other hand, Israel has come under much criticism in certain American media, on many American campuses and in several mainstream liberal churches. Those segments of the Jewish community who live and work in environments hostile to Israel, commonly embrace the anti-Israel bias around them. And they often insist they are being virtuous by doing so.

“The psychological dynamics of communities under attack explain why, both abroad and in Israel, the virtual siege placed upon the Jewish state will continue to lead segments of Jewish communities to support the besiegers and to urge Jewish self-reform as the path to winning relief. Yet the path they advocate is no less delusional than that of abused children who blame themselves for the abuse they experience. All too often such children doom themselves psychologically to lives of self-abnegation and misery. In the case of Jews indicting Israel for the hatred directed against it, the misery they cultivate goes far beyond themselves and ultimately, undermines Israel’s very survival.”

¹ Ken Levin, The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People under Siege (Hanover, NH: Smith & Kraus, 2005).

Kenneth Levin is a psychiatrist, historian and author of several books, among which is The Oslo Syndrome: Delusions of a People under Siege.¹ He is a clinical instructor in psychiatry at Harvard Medical School.

The writer has been a long-term adviser on strategy issues to the boards of several major multinational corporations in Europe and North America.He is board member and former chairman of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs and recipient of the LIfetime Achievement Award (2012) of the Journal for the Study of Anti-Semitism.

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein states the very marriage of a gentile woman to a non observant Jew, is equivalent to an open declaration that she will not observe the precepts. This is so, because it is highly unlikely that the gentile member of such a union, will be more committed to Judaism than her remiss Jewish husband...

Rabbi Moshe Feinstein states the very marriage of a gentile woman to a non observant Jew, is equivalent to an open declaration that she will not observe the precepts. This is so, because it is highly unlikely that the gentile member of such a union, will be more committed to Judaism than her remiss Jewish husband (certainly when they are living together prior to their marriage and throughout the "conversion" process.) Unlike mental or tacit negations, explains Rav Feinstein, open declarations do invalidate conversions. When such cases appear before a rabbinical court, its members actually become witnesses to an acceptance declaration that is not sincere. Therefore, it is no longer a tacit insincerity, but rather an obvious one. (As such, they are forbidden to sanction the conversion. ) (Regardless of what this Jewish court may declare,) the conversion is invalid and the person is not deemed a member of the Jewish nation - not l'chatchila and not b'dieved (NEVER). In Iggros Moshe, Letters of Moshe (Yoreh De’ah, no. 157), he writes that “According to the Law, it is certain that one who converts for the sake of marriage, does not intend to keep the commandments, and is not a proselyte at all.” "It is beyond my comprehension why any (legitimate) rabbi would want to include such people amongst the Jewish nation."

(Language simplified and clarified for the vast majority of idiots among us)

CLICK:

אגרות משה - חלק ב - פיינשטיין, משה בן דוד,  1895-1986 (page 1 of 554)

אגרות משה - חלק ב - פיינשטיין, משה בן דוד, 1895-1986 (page 1 of 554)

The eight jurors slapped Greer with the eight-figure bill for the emotional suffering he caused Mirlis by assaulting and battering the boy over a three-year period, from his sophomore to senior years at the high school. The panel calculated the total after also concluding that Greer and the yeshiva had shown recklessness and intentional infliction of emotional distress and the school separately had displayed negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

Jury Awards Rabbi’s Rape Victim $20M

by Christopher Peak

 

Hartford — A federal jury Thursday ordered prominent Rabbi Daniel Greer and his Elm Street yeshiva to pay a former student $15 million in compensatory damages because the rabbi raped and repeatedly abused him 15 years ago.

The jury awarded an additional $5 million in punitive damages, to pay the lawyers.

In adjudicating a civil lawsuit brought by Eliyahu Mirlis, a former high school student at the Yeshiva of New Haven, the jury deliberated in U.S. District Court here for 12 hours over two days before coming to its unanimous decision.

The eight jurors slapped Greer with the eight-figure bill for the emotional suffering he caused Mirlis by assaulting and battering the boy over a three-year period, from his sophomore to senior years at the high school. The panel calculated the total after also concluding that Greer and the yeshiva had shown recklessness and intentional infliction of emotional distress and the school separately had displayed negligence and negligent infliction of emotional distress.

That sum was less than half of the $38 million that the plaintiff’s attorney, Antonio Ponvert III, had requested.

Jurors also requested that the court nail Greer with extra punitive charges to pay Mirlis’s lawyers. That added another $5 million to the bill.

“This completely justified all my faith in the justice system. Even an incredibly difficult case can be resolved fairly on the facts,” Ponvert said. “What the plaintiff suffered and what has been suffered by children for generations need to stop, period. Child abuse, in all forms, is a plague that we all need to work together to stop.”

When asked why he believed his side prevailed, Ponvert responded, “The truth.”

Greer’s defense said the rabbi plans to appeal the verdict.

“We are extremely disappointed by the jury’s verdict, and intend to pursue all potential options to set it aside, including an appeal,” defense attorney David Grudberg wrote in an email.

The verdict followed a suspenseful four-day trial here at U.S. District Court, with a cliff-hanger ending about whether the yeshiva was also liable.

Two victims — Mirlis and the yeshiva’s assistant dean, Aviad Hack — both described their underaged sexual encounters with Greer in graphic detail. Shira Mirlis, the victim’s wife, said the abuse had hardened her partner, preventing him being vulnerable. An expert in childhood sexual abuse and a University of Connecticut professor, Julian Ford, explained to jurors that the inability to trust was an normal response to “betrayal trauma,” as he diagnosed Mirlis with post-traumatic stress disorder.

From Greer’s side, the jurors didn’t hear much of a denial. The rabbi repeatedly invoked his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. (He denied only one accusation: That he’d had sex with Mirlis on a forested parcel of land in Hamden.) The defense’s other witnesses presented only mitigating evidence: Neither the rabbi’s wife, Sarah Greer, nor his secretary, Jean Leadbury, had noticed anything unusual, they testified. The team’s defense instead, relied heavily on a set of cheery wedding photos showing Mirlis continued to maintain a relationship with his abuser, honoring the rabbi at life milestones.

Final Stabs At Character Assassination

Antonio Ponvert and his paralegal, Julie Vassar, outside court.

The final day in federal court Wednesday wrapped up with attorneys presenting 40-minute closing arguments from a podium arms-length from the jury box. The lawyers’ summations of the case volleyed from high-minded (with references to the Founding Fathers) to ad hominem (with accusations of deception and cheating).

Ponvert, Mirlis’s counsel, said the two victims’ testimony and an expert’s diagnosis proved the accusations against Greer were more likely than not true — meeting the lower standard, a preponderance of the evidence, used in civil suits as opposed to in criminal trials.

Ponvert, from the firm Koskoff Koskoff & Bieder, argued that the yeshiva also deserved blame. Hack, effectively the school’s manager, had suspected the rabbi was abusing Mirlis, once even trying to beat down a locked door where Greer was having sex with the boy inside. He failed to report his suspicions to child welfare and law enforcement authorities as required by law.

The defense, Ponvert added, still hadn’t fleshed out its counter-arguments: why Greer couldn’t deny the accusations, why Mirlis would want to attack someone he revered, why Hack admitted to only one sexual encounter as a student if he truly wanted to bring down the rabbi, and why the University of Connecticut pyschiatry professor might have been so “duped” by his client.

In closing, Ponvert asked for $38 million in damages to repay Mirlis for his stolen childhood and his pain since. He argued that Mirlis’s first experience with intimacy should have been dating a girl he loved. “Not a forced kiss, not fellatio, not anal sex. Not with a man and not with a rabbi. Not pseudo-romantic nights in motels with alcohol and hot tubs. Not coerced intimacy but real intimacy,” Ponvert said. “What this man did to Eli Mirlis has affected him in such a way that he cannot have a trusting relationship. And at the end of our lives, ladies and gentlemen, what do we all have but relationships with people that love us and the people we love, the moments we share with them and the experiences that bond us? Eli doesn’t have that.”

When defense attorney William Ward stood up, he first thanked the jury for being in attendance —  “more than I can say for the plaintiff,” the lawyer added, pointing out that Mirlis had been largely absent throughout the trial aside from a few hours on the stand Monday afternoon. He then argued there was no hard evidence of abuse in the exhibits. He called Mirlis a “liar” and a “cheat.”
“That’s not even an inference; it’s an admission,” Ward said. Mirlis “told you some other lies, big or small.”

The defense attorney made one last attempt to explain why Greer hadn’t denied the accusations. Because Mirlis had spoken with police a year ago, keeping silent on “anything that tends to incriminate you” by pleading the Fifth would be “wise,” Ward explained. “That could mean anything that puts Mr. Mirlis or Mr. Greer alone in the same room during four years in high school, anything.” He added that Ponvert had fired “loaded questions” throughout the trial, cornering Greer into remaining silent. (Local police decided not to pursue a criminal investigation of Greer, concluding that the statute of limitations had expired, according to law-enforcement officials familiar with the matter.)

Ward repeatedly sought to impeach Mirlis’s credibility. Mirlis, for example, testified that his grades suffered when he rebuffed Greer’s entreaties, but Ward pointed out that his report card didn’t reflect this, with five As and two B-pluses in classes Greer supposedly taught.

Several times, though, Ward himself twisted Mirlis’s testimony to make it sound deceptive. In one misrepresentation, Ward claimed Mirlis had lied about when he first informed his wife about Greer’s abuse. Ford, the UConn psychiatrist whom Ward described as a “hired gun,” said Mirlis kept the molestation secret during couples counseling —  a fact that wasn’t incompatible with Mirlis’s account of first telling his wife when they were dating. But Ward conflated the two, making it sounds like Mirlis had misled someone. That’s despite the fact that Mirlis testified, under oath, that Ford didn’t ask when he first confessed to his wife, so he didn’t tell the psychiatrist.

In another attempt to portray Mirlis as dishonest, Ward said Mirlis had lied about having sex with Greer repeatedly for 26 hours at a hotel in Paoli, Pennsylvania. Ponvert had indeed tried to portray the stay as an overnight orgy, but Mirlis had corrected him on the stand. To avoid violating the Sabbath, Mirlis indicated that they had sex only before Friday’s sundown and after Saturday’s sundown. By closing statements, Ward had reshaped that exchange to look dishonest. “It’s not ‘the 26-hour sex-fest’ that he told you in direct, isn’t it? It’s a lie, it’s a lie,” Ward claimed.

Ponvert fired back with a seven-minute rebuttal, calling Ward’s speech the “most bizarre and inaccurate” closing statement he’d heard in his career. Flustered with anger, he paused once to compose himself.

“I’m so frustrated I don’t know what to say at this point. Everyone wants this man out of here!” he exclaimed, his voice rising. “He’s [Greer’s] a child molester.”

Ponvert ended by saying it had been an honor to represent Mirlis, as well as a weighty responsibility. “I share that with you,” he said. “I ask you to accept that burden.”

“Dunkin’ Donuts Please”

Defense attorneys David Grudberg, William Ward and Amanda Nugent.

During the two full days that jurors argued in a locked room, starting at 11:35 a.m. on Wednesday, the rabbi paced around the courtroom, asking his lawyers about court procedure, gossiping with his wife about spectators and making several trips to the bathroom. Sarah Greer serenely read a book in the stands.

At 3:03 p.m. on Wednesday, jurors knocked on the door to indicate they had a question. They handed an unsigned, yellow sheet of paper to the marshal. It read, “If we finish this evening, will [we] be able to render a decision tonight or still have to come back tomorrow?” Judge Michael P. Shea sent his deputy into the room to let them know that if the court accepts their verdict tonight, they wouldn’t have to return.

At 3:19, they sent out another note. “We could use fresh coffee and donuts. Dunkin’ Donuts, please.”
The jurors sent out a note at 4:35 p.m. asking to replay Hack’s deposition. At 5:01 p.m., a second note said they’d finish deliberations on Thursday.

Back in the courtroom at 9:10 a.m. on Thursday, jurors examined the last 20 minutes of Hack’s deposition. Under pressure by Ward to name exact dates when Greer had sex with him as a student, Hack said he could not remember a single instance, aside from the first fondling. In the same clip, Hack said he knew about mandatory reporter laws, “certainly by 2007” — two years after Mirlis graduated.

For nearly four hours, the jury discussed whether the yeshiva had been negligent. After lunch, they wrote in a note that they couldn’t reach a unanimous verdict on that specific charge.

At 12:51 p.m., Judge Shea asked them to shrug off any fixed conclusions and reassess the evidence. “This is an important case for all parties. Therefore it’s important for you to reach a verdict without anyone surrendering a conscientiously held view,” Shea said. “There does not appear to be a reason why this case could be tried better or more exhaustively on either side, nor that any other men or women will be more intelligent, more impartially chosen or more competent to decide the case than you.” He added that jurors in the minority, in particular, should reexamine why more of their colleagues had tipped to the other side. “Take as much time as you need to discuss things; there is no rush.”

At 3:39 p.m., the jury handed back their ruling. After reading through verdict form, count by count, each juror stood individually to affirm agreement with the decision.

The defense team left silently, hurrying outside into oncoming traffic. Red-faced, Greer hugged Ward in the parking lot behind the courthouse, then slid into his minivan.

Beginning in the 1980s, Rabbi Greer oversaw the revival of the neighborhood around his yeshiva at the corner of Norton and Elm streets, renovating neglected historic homes.

Over the years, Greer has also crusaded against gay rights in Connecticut, at times played an active role in politics and government, and advocated for keeping nuisance businesses out of the Whalley Avenue commercial corridor. He and his family earned national attention for exposing johns who patronized street prostitutes in the neighborhood, for filing suit against Yale University over a requirement that students live in coed dorms, and then in 2007 for launching an armed neighborhood “defense” patrol and then calling in the Guardian Angels for assistance to combat crime. In the 1970s, Greer also led a successful campaign to force the United States to pressure the Soviet Union into allowing Jewish “refuseniks” to emigrate here and start new, freer lives.

New Haven Rabbi Daniel Greer found liable for $20 million in civil trial alleging he sexually abused a student

http://www.nhregister.com/general-news/20170518/new-haven-rabbi-daniel-greer-found-liable-for-20-million-in-civil-trial-alleging-he-sexually-abused-a-student

Previous coverage of this case:
• Suit: Rabbi Molested, Raped Students
• Greer’s Housing Corporations Added To Sex Abuse Lawsuit
• 2nd Ex-Student Accuses Rabbi Of Sex Assault
• 2nd Rabbi Accuser Details Alleged Abuse
• Rabbi Sexual Abuse Jury Picked
• On Stand, Greer Invokes 5th On Sex Abuse
• Rabbi Seeks To Bar Blogger from Court
• Trial Mines How Victims Process Trauma
• Wife, Secretary Come To Rabbi Greer’s Defense

Tags: Daniel Greer, Eliyahu Mirlis, sexual abuse, Yeshiva of New Haven, Antonio Ponvert, William Ward

 

http://www.newhavenindependent.org/index.php/archives/entry/jury_returns_verdict_rabbi/

Another Fake Chief Rabbi Found Guilty of Corruption

Former chief rabbi of Israel convicted of corruption 

Rabbi Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron found guilty of knowingly providing false education documentation to members of the security forces, thus making them eligible for extra pay; crimes occurred during Bakshi-Doron's tenure as chief rabbi.

Former Chief Rabbi of Israel Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron was convicted Monday of fraudulently obtaining benefits, attempting to fraudulently obtain benefits, providing false identification and breach of trust.
Bakshi-Doron was indicted in 2012 along with several other Chief Rabbinate officials for issuing 1,500 false Torah education certificates to members of the security forces, making them eligible for pay raises.

Bakshi-Doron's trial lasted for more than four years and the offenses attributed to him were committed more than 15 years ago, during his tenure as Chief Rabbi of Israel.

Former Chief Rabbi of Israel, Eliyahu Bakshi-Doron

In Court On Monday

Throughout the trial, Bakshi-Doron and his defense have maintained his innocence and have been trying to have the charges against him dropped for a variety of reasons, including the rabbi's medical condition.

The indictment alleges that from 1999-2003, Rabbi Yitzhak Ohana, Director of the Rabbinical Examinations and Accreditation Department, was asked either directly or through intermediaries to issue certificates to members of the security forces who studied at various colleges.

The fraudulent documents contained false information regarding the true scope of the supposed studies, including credits, hours studied, and past and future academic activities.

According to the indictment, Rabbi Ohana eventually approached Rabbi Bakshi-Doron and requested assistance in dealing with the issuing of the fake certificates. Bakshi-Doron instructed Ohana to issue members of the security forces certificates for higher-level religious education and "turn a blind eye" to the criteria in order to "close the matter."

Initially, the State Attorney's Office cleared Bakshi-Doron of the suspicions against him and informed him that the case had been closed.

However, five years later, following trials of additional suspects and new information related to Bakshi-Doron, the State Attorney's Office reopened the case against him, leading to Monday's conviction.

He is the second former chief rabbi to be convicted of fraud this year after former Ashkenazi chief rabbi Yona Metzger pleaded guilty to fraud, theft, conspiracy, breach of trust, money laundering, tax offenses and accepting bribes involving some NIS 10 million ($2.6 million) under a plea bargain. Metzger is currently serving a 3.5-year prison sentence at Ma’asiyahu Prison in the central Israeli town of Ramle.

Former Israel chief rabbi Yona Metzger at the Jerusalem District Court

http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4962516,00.html