White nationalists see advocate in Steve Bannon who will hold Trump to his campaign promises

CNN

White nationalist leaders are praising Donald Trump's decision to name former Breitbart executive Steve Bannon as his chief strategist, telling CNN in interviews they view Bannon as an advocate in the White House for policies they favor.

The leaders of the white nationalist and so-called "alt-right" movement — all of whom vehemently oppose multiculturalism and share the belief in the supremacy of the white race and Western civilization — publicly backed Trump during his campaign for his hardline positions on Mexican immigration, Muslims, and refugee resettlement. Trump has at times disavowed their support. Bannon's hiring, they say, is a signal that Trump will follow through on some of his more controversial policy positions.

"I think that's excellent," former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke told CNN's KFile. "I think that anyone that helps complete the program and the policies that President-elect Trump has developed during the campaign is a very good thing, obviously. So it's good to see that he's sticking to the issues and the ideas that he proposed as a candidate. Now he's president-elect and he's sticking to it and he's reaffirming those issues."

Duke, who last week lost his longshot bid for the US Senate seat from Louisiana, said he plans on expanding his radio show and is hoping to launch a 24 hour online news show with a similar approach to Comedy Central's Daily Show. He argued Bannon's position was among the most important in the White House.

"You have an individual, Mr. Bannon, who's basically creating the ideological aspects of where we're going," added Duke. "And ideology ultimately is the most important aspect of any government."

Bannon, who was a Navy officer and Goldman Sachs investment banker years before taking over Breitbart, has called the site "the platform for the alt-right." Under Bannon, Breitbart has taken an increasingly hardline tone on issues such as terrorism and immigration, running a headline after the Paris attacks of November 2015 saying, "Paris Streets Turned Into Warzone By Violent Migrants." It also ran a headline in May 2016 calling anti-Trump, neoconservative commentator Bill Kristol a "Renegade Jew."[...]

Peter Brimelow, who runs the white nationalist site VDARE, praised Bannon's hiring, saying it gives Trump a connection to the alt-right movement online.

"I think it's amazing," Brimelow said of Trump's decision to tap Bannon. "Can you imagine Mitt Romney doing this? It's almost like Trump cares about ideas! Especially amazing because I would bet Trump doesn't read online. Few plutocrats do, they have efficient secretaries."

Brimelow added his site would continue to focus solely on their hardline position on immigration, saying he expects American whites to vote their interests similar to other minority groups.

"To the extent that the 'alt-right' articulates that interest, it will continue to grow," Brimelow said.

Brad Griffin, a blogger who runs the white nationalist website Occidental Dissent using the pseudonym "Hunter Wallace," said he thought Bannon's hiring showed Trump would be held to his campaign promises.

"It makes sense to me," he said. "Reince [Priebus] can certainly get more done on Capitol Hill. He will be an instrument of Trump's will, not the other way around. Bannon is better suited as chief strategist and looking at the big picture. I think he will hold Trump to the promises he has already made during the campaign. We endorse many of those promises like building the wall, deportations, ending refugee resettlement, preserving the Second Amendment, etc. There's a lot of stuff in there on which almost everyone on the right agrees."

Griffin added, "We're most excited though about the foreign policy implications of Bannon in the White House. We want to see our counterparts in Europe — starting in Austria and France — win their upcoming elections. We're hearing reports that Breitbart is expanding its operations in continental Europe and that is where our focus will be in 2017."

Jared Taylor, who runs the site American Renaissance, echoed those comments, saying Bannon would help hold Trump to his campaign rhetoric.[...]

European rabbis fear 'Trump effect' inspiring anti-Semites

YNET

In discussions of the Conference of European Rabbis in Minsk, Belarus, rabbis expressed concern at the reduction of American involvement in the foreign affairs of various countries as well as "tailwind" ring-wing parties that hold anti-Semitic views.

While many in Israel are celebrating the election of Donald Trump, thinking that his administration will be more responsive regarding policy on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, many in European Jewish communities are concerned.

Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, the President of the Conference of European Rabbis and Chief Rabbi of Moscow, points out that one of the first to congratulate Trump was Marine Le Pen, of the National Front—a far right French party—who is known for calling to outlaw the skullcap and cut funding for municipal Kosher meals for students.

"Trump's rise has helped push right-wing forces in Europe," said Goldschmidt. "They are against foreigners and they are intolerant of minorities. Even though Trump has Jewish family members, I don't see the same thing in France, Germany or Austria. They repeatedly express anti-Semitic attitudes and have maintained ties to the Nazi traditions."

According to Goldschmidt, new American foreign policy by Trump could adversely affect Jews in Europe. "I'm not referring to election speeches, but 'the day after,'" said Goldschmidt. "Trump has mentioned that under him, the United States will no longer be the 'police of the world.'"

Goldschmidt also discussed the turnaround in foreign policy of the superpower, noting that the US provides security for allies and protection for minorities.

"Removing the American umbrella will cause every community to be completely dependent upon the local government, which is not always pro-minority without a powerful external actor, which protects minority rights. With Britain leaving the European Union and Trump's victory, Jews are at a significant crossroads. We don't know what the changes will be, but we must be prepared."

Trump Takes Credit for Helping to Save a Ford Plant That Wasn’t Closing

NY Times

President-elect Donald J. Trump claimed credit on Thursday night for persuading Ford to keep an automaking plant in Kentucky rather than moving it to Mexico. The only wrinkle: Ford was not actually planning to move the plant.

Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter shortly after 9 p.m. that Ford’s chairman, William Clay Ford Jr., had just told him that Ford “will be keeping the Lincoln plant in Kentucky — no Mexico.”

Minutes later, Mr. Trump wrote in a second post: “I worked hard with Bill Ford to keep the Lincoln plant in Kentucky. I owed it to the great State of Kentucky for their confidence in me!” Mr. Trump won 62.5 percent of the state’s popular vote in the presidential election.

During the campaign, he repeatedly criticized Ford for moving production to Mexico, and he threatened to impose a 35 percent tariff on vehicles made there.

Ford makes the Lincoln MKC, a sport utility vehicle, at a factory in Louisville. Last week, Ford said it planned to move production of the vehicle elsewhere. On Thursday night, after Mr. Trump’s Twitter messages, the company said that Mexico had been the intended destination and that it would now keep MKC production in Kentucky.

But Ford had not planned to close the Louisville factory. Instead, it had planned to expand production of another vehicle made in Louisville, the Ford Escape. And the change had not been expected to result in any job losses.

“Whatever happens in Louisville, it will not lose employment,” Jimmy Settles, a union official, told The Detroit Free Press. “They cannot make enough Escapes.”

Now, thanks to Mr. Trump, the plant will make fewer Escapes — and more MKCs.[...]

Israeli is threatened with "distaster" if mosques are prevented from using high power amplifiers to disturb the public

update:Washington Post [ read the comments]

A proposal to make mosques reduce the loudspeaker volume of their call to prayer has sparked an uproar among Israel’s Muslims, underscoring their fraught relationship with the country’s Jewish majority.

Supporters of the bill, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, have painted it as a matter of quality of life. But it has deepened a sense among the Arab minority that it is being increasingly marginalized by his hard-line government.

“The call to prayer came before the racists. The call to prayer will remain after the racists,” said Ayman Odeh, head of a joint list of Arab parties in parliament.

The bill, which received initial support from a committee of Israeli ministers this week, proposes to limit the volume of public address systems of all houses of prayer in Israel.

But the bill’s sponsor, a lawmaker from a nationalist Jewish religious party, made clear the target is mosque loudspeakers, and it has been dubbed the “muezzin bill,” referring to the man who delivers the call to prayer.

Devout Muslims pray five times a day, beginning around 5 a.m. In Israel, the call to prayer is often loud enough to wake up residents in Jewish neighborhoods or towns who live in close proximity to Muslim communities.

“I cannot count the times, they are simply too numerous, that citizens have turned to me from all parts of Israeli society, from all religions, with complaints about the noise,” Netanyahu told his Cabinet this week.

“Israel is a country that respects freedom of religion for all faiths. Israel is also committed to defending those who suffer from the loudness of the excessive noise of the announcements,” he added.

But Palestinians and Arab citizens of Israel see the initiative as yet another affront by an increasingly hostile Israeli society and leadership.[...]

Some detractors have said the bill is unnecessary, since Israel already has rules regulating excessive noise. Still, it has garnered support from many secular liberals who normally are at odds with Netanyahu’s conservative government.[...]

A planned vote on Wednesday was blocked after ultra-Orthodox Jewish lawmakers raised concerns that it could also affect the sirens that announce the start of the Jewish Sabbath and holidays in many communities.

“I think the whole law is unnecessary,” Health Minister Yaakov Litzman told Israeli Army Radio Wednesday, adding that he would support an amended bill that made an exception for Jewish sirens. A ministerial committee will revisit the bill.

Netanyahu has claimed that many European cities and Muslim countries place limits on loudspeaker volume.

In Ireland, Muslims seeking to build mosques must agree that there will be no public call to prayer. Local Muslim leaders have accepted the restriction, citing religious teachings on showing respect for neighbors, and more than a dozen mosques have been built since 1996.

In Germany, only about 30 of the 160 official mosques have a call to prayer, according to the DPA news agency. While residents often complain, authorities say it is covered by the right to religious freedom, though still subject to general laws against making excessive noise.

The nationalist Alternative for Germany and various far-right parties have tried to exploit the issue, so far to little avail. Yet the party has done very well in local elections by campaigning against Islam and is surging as the country heads into a major election year in 2017.

In Britain, local city and town councils mediate occasional disputes over early morning prayer calls. There is an online petition in support of allowing areas with high Muslim populations to have “a loud call for prayer” at least three times a day, but it has not yet generated the 100,000 electronic signatures required to put it before Parliament.

While France has no ban, French mosques don’t sound public calls to prayer, apparently out of respect to the country’s secular traditions.

Likewise, very few mosques in the U.S. blast a call to prayer. Ibrahim Hooper of the Council on American-Islamic Relations said most American mosques are not located in the heart of Muslim communities. “Even if they broadcast it, the likelihood is that people are not close enough to hear it,” he said.

Dawud Walid, director of CAIR’s Michigan chapter, said the call to prayer rings out from some mosques in Detroit and the suburbs of Hamtramck and Dearborn, all with large Muslim populations. In a 1979 decision, a Detroit judge ruled a mosque had a constitutional right to broadcast its prayer call.

Loud calls to prayer are ubiquitous across the Middle East.

Pakistan bans its Ahmadiyya community, who are reviled by mainstream Muslims as heretics, from broadcasting the call to prayer. It also prevents religious leaders from blaring their sermons, fearing incitement.

Egypt has attempted to install a system where mosques would use a simultaneous, recorded call to prayer. But the proposal has struggled to get off the ground. Officials say the Ministry of Religious Endowments, which looks after mosques, is negotiating the purchase of equipment for the plan.

================================================
Update: Incredibly dumb - Arutz 7 Chareidim protest law because it might prohibit sirens announcing Shabbos

Artuz 7

Palestinian Authority furious over proposed law, threatens Israel with 'disaster' if law passes.

The Palestinian Authority is furious over a proposed law that would prohibit places of worship from using a loudspeaker system, and threatened to take Israel to the UN Security Council.

A Hamas representative called the bill "a dangerous and provocative development. Any interference on the part of the Israelis will be met with disaster. No one is allowed to interfere with our religious rituals."

On Sunday, the "Muezzin Law" was approved by the Ministerial Committee for Legislation. The law was initiated by MK Motti Yogev (Jewish Home) and other Knesset members, and came after Israeli citizens complained about the disruption to their quality of life and daily activities that the muezzins blasting on loudspeakers in neighboring towns and adjacent neighborhoods were causing them. The proposal still has to pass the legislative procedure before it becomes law.

PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas warned Israel of the "consequences" of passing the law, and told Israel the law would cause a "disaster."

Abbas' spokesman, Nabil Abu Roudina, said the PA would turn to the UN Security Council, as well as other international bodies.

PA "property minister" Yousef Adeais also spoke about the law, saying it would threaten the entire region with a religious war, since the law "infringed" on "religious rights."

"This is a decision saturated with extremism against the Muslim religion in Jerusalem," he said.

He also said the law would not change the religious status quo in Jerusalem or religious rights there, but would only make the Muslims more committed to their holy places and cause them to redefine themselves culturally, nationally, and politically.

Former Fatah spokesperson Rafat Alian, who lives in Jerusalem, said Israel's intention to forbid loudspeaker systems in mosques would cause a religious war with the Palestinian Authority and that he would join the fight.

Hamas, too, responded to the law with calls to pray in Jerusalem mosques, including Al-Aqsa, saying the new development was dangerous and changed both Jerusalem's situation and that of its mosques, and erased the Islamic identity from Jerusalem.

"This is a forbidden interference in our culture and provokes Muslims' emotions," they said. "This law goes against laws and international art rights, which protect Muslims' holy places and the religious rights of the Palestinians, as they were expressed in UNESCO's latest decision."

On Sunday, a preacher at Al-Aqsa said "anyone angered by the call of the muezzin noise should leave" the country.[...]

A Jerusalem resident who spoke to Arutz Sheva about the piercing noise pollution of loud calls to prayer at midnight and 4 a.m.remarked that Muslims have been praying since Islam appeared in the 7th century without the aid of electronic loudspeakers at full volume calling them to prayer.

Paradigm shift: Truth is Dead as Post-Truth defines the Trump Era

Washington Post

It's official: Truth is dead. Facts are passe.

And this sentiment — 😂 — is so last year.

Oxford Dictionaries has selected “post-truth” as 2016's international word of the year, after the contentious “Brexit” referendum and an equally divisive U.S. presidential election caused usage of the adjective to skyrocket, according to the Oxford University Press.

The dictionary defines “post-truth” as “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.”

In this case, the “post-” prefix doesn't mean “after” so much as it implies an atmosphere in which a notion is irrelevant — but then again, who says you have to take our word for it anymore?

Throughout a grueling presidential campaign in which accusations of lies and alternate realities flowed freely, in every direction, hundreds of fact checks were published about statements from both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.

Dozens of media outlets found that Trump's relationship with the truth was, well, complicated.

“We concede all politicians lie,” conservative columnist Jennifer Rubin wrote in September. “Nevertheless, Donald Trump is in a class by himself.”

She cited The Atlantic's David Frum, who described Trump's dishonesty in May as “qualitatively different than anything before seen from a major-party nominee.”

None of this seemed to matter significantly to those who supported him.

“There is no doubt that even in the quadrennial truth-stretching that happens in presidential campaigns, Trump has set records for fabrication,” Chris Cillizza wrote days before the election.

And yet, Cillizza noted, Trump was seen as more honest than Clinton by an eight-point margin, according to a Washington Post-ABC News tracking poll released on Nov. 2.[...]

A serious misreading of the Rambam: Jewish Community Watch's Rambam On Sexual Perversion

There are those who feel that all is fair in the battle against evil (which child abuse surely is). The following is an embarrassing essay produced by Jewish Community watch which falsely claims that the Rambam wrote against sexual perversion in his Mishna Torah. However when sloppy scholarship or false facts are used to justify something - it weakens and destroys legitimacy. The Rambam in fact is not discussing the issue of perversion in the halacha cited and there is no source that I am aware of that the Rambam ever discussed the issue. This is not a criticism of the serious and important work that the Jewish Community Watch organization does - but it is a criticism of poor scholarship being used in the name of a greater good. I did send them a letter protesting this essay - but have not as yet received a response.

Jewish Community Watch

RAMBAM ON SEXUAL PERVERSION

Posted on November 14, 2016

Rambam: Hilchos Yesodai HaTorah 5:7 

 ומנין שאפילו במקום סכנת נפשות אין עוברין על אחת משלש עבירות אלו שנאמר ואהבת את ה’ אלהיך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך ובכל מאודך אפילו הוא נוטל את נפשך והריגת נפש מישראל לרפאות נפש אחרת או להציל אדם מיד אנס דבר שהדעת נוטה לו הוא שאין מאבדין נפש מפני נפש ועריות הוקשו לנפשות שנאמר כי כאשר יקום איש על רעהו ורצחו נפש כן הדבר הזה:

Those who don’t know of the greatness of the past tend to think that sexual deviancy is a fairly new battle with warriors gallantly taking arms in the throngs of this new millennium.  Well, think again.  

 As King Solomon proclaimed, “There is nothing new under the sun.”  One need only look into the Torah to see all of knowledge – past, present and future, as well as an all encompassing compass toward decency and decorum. 

The issue of sexual deviancy is stated in the five books of Moses and expanded upon by Rashi, and countless masters of the Talmud.  But let’s take a look at one of the most noted of Talmudic masters – the Rambam (Maimonides). 

 The Rambam writes: (Hilchos Yesodai HaTorah) “[When] someone becomes attracted to a woman and is [love-]sick [to the extent that] he is in danger of dying, [although] the physicians say he has no remedy except engaging in sexual relations with her, he should be allowed to die rather than engage in sexual relations with her. [This applies] even if she is unmarried.”

 The Rambam writes, with purposeful intent, the following:

“With regard to the killing of a Jewish person to heal another person or to save a person from one who is compelling him, it is logical that one person’s life should not be sacrificed for another. [The Torah has] established an equation between forbidden sexual relations and murder, as [Deuteronomy 22:26] states: “This matter is just like a case where a person rises up against his colleague and slays him.”” Lest someone conjure thoughts of misplaced excuses and understood desires, the Rambam makes it perfectly clear that destructive and abusive relationships are unacceptable to the extent of a person losing his life is acceptable.  

Indeed, “the killing of one person” is a direct response to perverse abusive sexual relationships.  Sexual abuse and molestation hurts the body and is an act of “murder” to the soul.  It is not “like” murder…not “compared to” murder….not “equivalent to” murder.   It is MURDER period.  To this the Rambam writes that, “is logical that one person’s life should not be sacrificed for another.”  

 The Rambam knew very well the weaknesses of the weak, the sick and the perverted.  He understood that someone just “dying” to molest and abuse another should do just that….die.

Donald Trump Requests Security Clearance for Son-in-Law Jared Kushner: The problem of nepotism

NBC News

Donald Trump has taken the unprecedented step of requesting his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, receive top-secret clearance to join him for his Presidential Daily Briefings, which began Tuesday.

Multiple sources tell NBC News Trump received his first briefing on Tuesday and designated both Kushner and Ret. Gen. Michael Flynn as his staff-level companions for the briefings going forward.

While Flynn has the necessary security clearance, Kushner does not, and it could take weeks — or even longer — for him to receive it.

It's the latest in a series of unorthodox developments in Trump's transition process that have cast a pall over his first week as president-elect.

On Tuesday, former Rep. Mike Rogers announced he was leaving the transition team, as part of what sources close to the transition process told NBC News was a "purge" of loyalists to New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who was demoted from leading the effort last week due in large part to grudges held by Trump and Kushner, sources say.

Naming Steve Bannon, founder and chairman of controversial conservative Alt Right-leaning outlet Breitbart, as a chief strategist in his White House sparked backlash from Democrats and gave Republicans on Capitol Hill a new headache, as many dodged questions about Bannon's controversial comments about minorities, among other things.

And on Tuesday Trump also rolled out his Presidential Inaugural Committee leadership, a list that was packed with many of Trump's biggest donors and fundraisers and as such raised further questions about his pledge to "Drain the Swamp" and rid Washington of corruption.

While it's unclear when Kushner would receive security clearance, the legality of such a move is murky as well, as it raises questions about whether Trump is contravening the anti-nepotism law that bars presidents from appointing family members to cabinet positions or formal government jobs.[...]

Still, experts note the purpose of the 1967 anti-nepotism statute is to prevent nepotistic favoritism in the wielding of federal power and benefits, so any notion of granting such an important federal power to a non-employee family member contradicts the purpose and spirit of that law, as well as standard practice.

It's unprecedented for a "child or family member" to receive security clearances, said Bradley Moss, a national security lawyer who has held that kind of security clearance and clerked for the National Security Archive.

He added, "You can't hold a security clearance as an informal advisor — there is no such concept."

It is claimed that there is a 40% drop out rate from Israeli yeshivos - what is the solution?

BHOL

אחד הסודות הרגישים ביותר בחברה החרדית הוא שיעורי הנשירה ממערכת החינוך החרדית. מחקר של מכון ירושלים לחקר ישראל, שפורסם בקיץ, בדק את נתוני הנשירה מהישיבות הקטנות — התיכונים החרדיים לבנים. על פי המחקר, מספר הנושרים מהישיבות הקטנות נע בין 2,000 ל–3,000 בשנה, 3.5%–6% מהמחזור. בחישוב שש־שנתי מדובר בשיעורי נשירה מצטברים של 20%–40% מהמחזור. אלו הם שיעורי נשירה עצומים. לשם ההשוואה, לפי השנתון החרדי של ישראל — שנתון שמפורסם במשותף על ידי מכון ירושלים והמכון לדמוקרטיה — אלה הם שיעורי נשירה כפולים עד גבוהים פי ארבעה משיעורי הנשירה במערכת החינוך הממלכתית.

ההסבר לשיעורי הנשירה העצומים הללו הוא אופי הלימוד התובעני והנוקשה של הישיבות הקטנות: במהלך שלוש שנות הישיבה (כיתות ט'־יא'), הנערים לומדים לימודי קודש בלבד, בדרך כלל בלימוד עצמי בחברותא, בימי לימוד שנמשכים משעות הבוקר המוקדמות ועד שעות הלילה המאוחרות. לכן מרבית הישיבות הקטנות מציעות תנאי פנימייה. תנאי הלימוד התובעניים מעודדים מצוינות — ואת ההצלחה של מתי המעט שהם "תלמידי חכמים" אוטודידקטיים — אבל מקשים מאוד על הבינוניים והחלשים. התוצאה היא נשירה גלויה או סמויה ניכרת בישיבות הקטנות.

משרד החינוך זיהה לפני כמה שנים את נקודת התורפה הזו של מערכת החינוך החרדית, ופתח מוסדות חינוך טכנולוגיים לנוער חרדי נושר. פתיחת המוסדות הללו מסבירה את הקיטון במספר הנושרים מ–3,000 ל–2,000 בשנה (שיעור הנשירה של הבנים ירד מ–6% ל–3.5% מהמחזור).

ואולם לדברי הרב בצלאל כהן, מדובר בפלסטר לבעיה עמוקה בהרבה: "משרד החינוך נכנס עם תקציבים גדולים לבתי הספר הטכנולוגיים — זה אינטרס של החברה החרדית, והיו גם כספים קואליציוניים לכך — ולכאורה מקטין את היקף הנשירה. בפועל, מדובר בנוער שכבר מתרחק מהדת, עם דימוי עצמי ומוטיווציה נמוכים, ועם יעדים חינוכיים נמוכים. בתי הספר הללו מציעים בגרות טכנולוגית חלקית, וזה לא מאפשר אופק מקצועי מרשים מדי".

=====================================================

BHOL

הרב הירש במתקפה חריפה: לימודים באקדמיה - חשש כפירה

הבוקר מתפרסמים דבריו של חבר מועצת גדולי התורה של "דגל התורה" וראש ישיבת סלבודקה הרב משה הלל הירש, שיוצא נגד הלימודים האקדמיים לגברים ולנשים • "אם יש מרצה שאינו מאמין בתורה, זה מכניס קרירות ביראת שמים" "אין חסינות. בכל לימודים בסביבה אקדמאית יש סכנה. אנחנו לא מדברים  על דבר דק ועדין, אלא על דברים חמורים, הרחק מעליה דרכך זו מינות" - כך התבטא הגאון רבי משה הלל הירש, ראש ישיבת סלבודקא וחבר מועצת גדולי התורה של 'דגל התורה'.  הדברים החריפים פורסמו הבוקר (שלישי) בעיתון 'יתד נאמן', כחלק ממסע הסברה וקמפיין שעורך אחד הארגונים בשבועות האחרונים כנגד מה שהוא מכנה "פגעי האקדמיה". הבוקר, כאמור, הובאו דבריו של ראש ישיבת סלבודקה, שמשתמש בשפה חריפה מאד נגד הלימודים במסגרות האקדמיות.  הגרמ"ה הירש ציטט בדבריו מהגמרא ואמר כי - "צריך להתרחק מכל שמיעת דיבור מינות אפילו קל שבקלים... נכנס לקורס פרופסור, זה גורם בהכרח קרירות בעבודת ה'. יתכן שהאב יאמר על הבת שלו: "היא בחורה חזקה" – זו טעות חמורה... יתכן בחורים מצויינים ביותר בלימוד, בתפילה, וכו', ויש להם בליבם הרהורים אפילו בעיקרי אמונה, שאף אחד מבחוץ לא יודע". [...]

On quest to clear Kasztner, historian ‘shocked’ to prove Nazi collaboration

Times of Israel

But for British Jewish historian Paul Bogdanor, his ambition to find material defending the controversial wartime Zionist leader, Rudolf Kasztner, was cruelly thwarted.

Bogdanor was “extremely shocked” to find that everything pointed towards Kasztner’s having been “a collaborator” with the Nazis, and a “betrayer of the Zionist movement and the Jewish people.”

Bogdanor’s new book, “Kasztner’s Crime,” published in October, sets out the case against the Jewish leader in damning detail. Even the most devoted defender might have second thoughts after reading his book.

Ironically, Bogdanor set out to work on the book almost a decade ago in a bid “to prove Kasztner’s innocence.” He was tired of seeing Kasztner’s name come up repeatedly in anti-Zionist propaganda.

Kasztner was a leader of a small Zionist grouping in Budapest towards the end of World War II. He led a Jewish rescue committee which, before the Nazis entered Hungary, did succeed in saving the lives of a number of Jews. But once the Nazis arrived, Kasztner, an ambitious lawyer, became embroiled in prolonged negotiations with the Nazi leadership, particularly Adolf Eichmann.

After complex dealings with Eichmann, Kasztner succeeded in getting the Nazis to agree to the deportation of a group of 1,684 Hungarian Jews, the so-called “Kasztner Train,” who eventually ended up in freedom in Switzerland.

But thousands more continued on the doomed path to Auschwitz. Bogdanor says that not only did Kasztner know they were being sent to their deaths, but that he actively kept such information secret from other Jews in Hungary and the wider Jewish world.

Kasztner himself did not get on the train, but survived the war and made his way to Palestine. By 1952 he was a spokesman for the Ministry of Trade and a would-be member of Knesset, though he did not succeed in obtaining a place high enough on the Mapai list to become elected.

Nevertheless, when, in 1953, an embittered Hungarian Jew named Malkiel Gruenwald distributed a pamphlet about Kasztner, naming him as a Nazi collaborator, the Israeli government thought highly enough of him to bring a libel suit on his behalf, accusing Gruenwald of defamation.[...]

On March 3, 1957, right-wing extremists shot Kasztner dead. The following year, too late for him, the court verdict was reversed, suggesting that much of what was claimed against him was not correct. Leading the campaign in ensuing years to rehabilitate Kasztner was journalist and political Tommy Lapid, himself a Hungarian Jew and father of Yair Lapid, the leader of today’s Yesh Atid party.

“Kasztner didn’t start out as someone evil,” says Bogdanor. “He started out as someone who wanted to rescue Jews, and before March 1944, he did rescue Jews. But when the Nazis occupied Hungary, he began negotiating with them and, very quickly, I argue, he became a collaborator.” [...]

Bogdanor makes it clear that while the case against Kasztner is damning, the anti-Zionist claim “that Kasztner was part of a Zionist conspiracy with the Nazis to exterminate the Jews of Europe, is nonsense.”

“He was not acting on behalf of the Zionist movement, he betrayed it. This is proved in my book by the fact that he was feeding his contacts in the free world Nazi disinformation. If there had been a Zionist conspiracy with the Nazis, Kasztner wouldn’t have been feeding the Zionists Nazi disinformation,” says Bogdanor.

Joel Brand, who traveled to Istanbul, only to be arrested by the British. (Courtesy)

Joel Brand, who traveled to Istanbul, only to be arrested by the British. (Courtesy)

Kasztner was “drawn into this web of collaboration,” says Bogdanor, by degrees. Part of it was his own sense of aggrandizement and vanity that he was the sole conduit for the Nazis to deal with the Jews of Hungary.

Bogdanor notes members of Kasztner’s rescue committee were the only Jews in the country who did not have to wear a yellow star. They were permitted to continue to use their own cars and telephones and Kasztner, within a month of the occupation, was the only Jew allowed to travel from the capital to the provinces.[...]

The central charge made against Kasztner by the surviving Hungarian Jews was, says Bogdanor, “not just that he failed to warn them [of the Nazis’ intention]. It was that Kasztner had instructed local Jewish leadership to mislead them, and to deceive them into boarding the trains to Auschwitz. After Kasztner had visited the local communities, the leadership spread false information — which he had given them — that the Jews were going to be resettled inside Hungary. Agranat and the other judges overlooked this matter of deception.”

Bogdanor admits to being profoundly shocked by the depth and extent of what he found out about Kasztner. It would have been bad enough, he argues, if Kasztner had passively collaborated with the Nazis. But he actively collaborated, he says, taking steps to mislead both Jews inside Hungary and his Jewish contacts in the outside world.[....]

Bogdanor has met Holocaust survivors from Hungary “who are extremely distressed by the campaign to rehabilitate Kasztner. I felt a greater obligation to them to do what I could for them… Kasztner did know that Jews were being exterminated, he knew and he repeatedly admitted it. His defenders have to say he didn’t know, which is contrary to the facts.”

He saw “a tsunami of pro-Kasztner sentiment,” which had spurred him to write the book, and next year playwright Motti Lerner’s eponymous Kasztner is set for a revival production by Israel’s national theater.

Paul Bogdanor says he constantly asked himself during the decade it took him to write the book, “Am I wrong? Am I sure?”

“But yes,” he concludes. “I am as sure as it is possible to be. Kasztner was guilty.”

As expected Trump seems to be walking back promises about moving embassy to Jerusalem and dismantling Iran deal

update CBS News - how says he is not sure he wants to carry out his threat of appointing a special prosecutor to get Hillary Clinton

Times of Israel

Appearing to walk back statements made by president-elect and other advisers, Walid Phares says nuclear pact will be ‘renegotiated,’ US mission will only be moved to Jerusalem under ‘consensus,’ brokering Israeli-Palestinian peace deal will be top priority

A senior adviser to President-elect Donald Trump said the new US leader will “review” the Iran nuclear agreement, but will stop short of ripping up the landmark international pact.

Walid Phares, one of Trump’s top foreign policy advisers, also signaled that Trump might not move the US Embassy to Jerusalem immediately and indicated he would make negotiating an Israeli-Palestinian peace deal a priority right off the bat

The comments appeared to represent a break with some comments made by other Trump advisers and the president-elect himself, and highlighted persisting confusion over what the contours of a Trump administration’s foreign policy may look like.

Speaking to BBC Radio on Thursday, Phares said the nuclear deal, which Trump has railed against and vowed to dismantle, would instead be renegotiated with Tehran.

“Ripping up is maybe a too strong of word, he’s gonna take that agreement, it’s been done before in international context, and then review it,” he said, according to a CNN recording of the interview.

“He will take the agreement, review it, send it to Congress, demand from the Iranians to restore a few issues or change a few issues, and there will be a discussion,” Phares added. “It could be a tense discussion but the agreement as is right now — $750 billion to the Iranian regime without receiving much in return and increasing intervention in four countries — that is not going to be accepted by the Trump administration.”

During the election campaign, Trump described the nuclear deal as “disastrous” and said it would be his “number one priority” to dismantle it.

Yet he also sowed confusion when he said he would demand greater oversight over the deal and enforce it, at a speech to the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC in March. In that same speech, he also said he would dismantle the deal.

“We must enforce the terms of the previous deal to hold Iran totally accountable. And we will enforce it like you’ve never seen a contract enforced before, folks, believe me,” he said then.

On Thursday, State Department spokesman Mark Toner warned that nothing was stopping Trump from tearing up the agreement, rebuffing comments from Iranian President Hassan Rouhani that the pact was enshrined by the United Nations Security Council and could therefore not be canceled by one party.

The agreement, reached in July 2014 to thwart suspected work toward an atomic weapon, requires Iran to curb its nuclear enrichment activities in exchange for sanctions relief.

Israel was and remains the world’s leading critic of the deal, calling it a “historic mistake” and arguing that it falls woefully short of preventing Tehran from obtaining nuclear weapons.

Toner said if Trump pulls out of the agreement, it could fall apart and lead to Iran restarting work toward a bomb.

It’s not clear if Iran, which remains deeply distrustful of the United States and has complained of receiving a raw deal under the nuclear pact, would be open to renegotiating the agreement, the hard-fought result of years of intensive diplomatic activity.

Will move embassy ‘under consensus’

Phares also told the BBC that while Trump was committed to moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, as other presidential candidates have vowed, he would not do so unilaterally.

“Many presidents of the United States have committed to do that, and he said as well that he will do that, but he will do it under consensus,” Phares said.

Phares did not elaborate on what consensus would be sought for such a move, which would break with decades of precedent and put Washington at odds with nearly all United Nations member states.[...]

The moral saviour waffles: Trump says 17-month-old gay marriage ruling is ‘settled’ law — but 43-year-old abortion ruling isn’t

Washington Post

Donald Trump sent a message about his priorities to social conservatives Sunday on "60 Minutes”: On abortion, I'll keep fighting. On gay marriage, not so much.

But his justification was confusing — and likely will be to some of his biggest supporters in the evangelical community. Trump basically said that the Supreme Court's 17-month-old ruling legalizing gay marriage nationwide is over and done with, but its 43-year-old decision legalizing abortion — Roe v. Wade — shouldn't be. And he did all of this in the course of a few minutes.

Here's the exchange on gay marriage:

LESLEY STAHL: Do you support marriage equality?

TRUMP: It — it’s irrelevant because it was already settled. It’s law. It was settled in the Supreme Court. I mean it’s done.

STAHL: So even if you appoint a judge that —

TRUMP: It’s done. It — you have — these cases have gone to the Supreme Court. They’ve been settled. And, I’m fine with that.

Just prior, though, Trump said he would appoint “pro-life” judges in hopes of reversing Roe v. Wade and sending the issue back to the states:

STAHL: During the campaign, you said that you would appoint justices who were against abortion rights. Will you appoint — are you looking to appoint a justice who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade?

TRUMP: So look, here’s what’s going to happen — I’m going to — I’m pro-life. The judges will be pro-life. They’ll be very —

STAHL: But what about overturning this law —

TRUMP: Well, there are a couple of things. They’ll be pro-life, they’ll be — in terms of the whole gun situation, we know the Second Amendment, and everybody’s talking about the Second Amendment, and they’re trying to dice it up and change it, they’re going to be very pro-Second Amendment. But having to do with abortion if it ever were overturned, it would go back to the states. So it would go back to the states and —

STAHL: Yeah, but then some women won’t be able to get an abortion?

TRUMP: No, it’ll go back to the states.

STAHL: By state — no some —

TRUMP: Yeah, well, they’ll perhaps have to go, they’ll have to go to another state.

To put it mildly, these two positions are irreconcilable. Trump could make the case that the country favors gay marriage more than it does abortion. He could argue that one is simply more important to him because it involves issues of life. He could say it would be easier to overturn one than the other.

But those aren't his arguments. Instead, he props up a 17-month-old decision on gay marriage as settled law, but a 1973 decision on abortion as something that could be overturned. That's having it both ways.[...]