Most Read
    Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

    “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejects Donald Trump’s recent remarks about Muslims”

    “Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu rejects Donald Trump’s recent remarks about Muslims”

    When YUUUGE personalities collide

    This should be interesting.

    When two over-sized personalities collide, neither of whom is known for backing down.

    On Twitter and Facebook, Benjamin Netanyahu just released the following statement:

    Prime Minister Netanyahu rejects Donald Trump’s recent remarks about Muslims.

    The State of Israel respects all religions and strictly guarantees the rights of all its citizens. At the same time, Israel is fighting against militant Islam that targets Muslims, Christians and Jews alike and threatens the entire world.

    As for the meeting with Mr. Trump that was set some two weeks ago, the Prime Minister decided earlier this year on a uniform policy to agree to meet with all presidential candidates from either party who visit Israel and ask for a meeting.

    This policy does not represent an endorsement of any candidate or his or her views. Rather, it is an expression of the importance that Prime Minister Netanyahu attributes to the strong alliance between Israel and the United States.

    [Featured Image: Netanyahu campaign ad]


    Donations tax deductible
    to the full extent allowed by law.


    Fuck you Netanyahu.

    If Muslims are so great, why don’t you open the borders for unlimited Muslim immigration into your country.

    Why should the USA take Syians when the neighbors of the Syrians wolnt?

      Because Syria, and Iraq for that matter, is still officially at war with Israel. No country on earth will take in its enemy citizens as refugees. Furthermore Israel has treated over a thousand Syrian war wounded at its own expense – which is a whole lot more than tje USA has done.

      Thirdly Israel is not asking the US to take in Syrian refugees. So why the fury at Bibi?

      Bibi was only condemning Trump’s frankly ridiculous and impractical suggestion to ban all Muslim immigration. It is both unfair and totally unfeasible. For starters how can you tell someone’s religion just from their countrymof orogin? I oresume you do know that there are many Christian refugees fleeing Syria and Iraq would you ban them too? How would you know who is a genuine aaChristian and who a Muslim?

        “Trump’s frankly ridiculous and impractical suggestion to ban all Muslim immigration”

        Except that isn’t Trumps plan. His plan is a perfectly reasonable temporary halt while vetting process is improved.

        Yes there are some difficulties with implementation of plan but that is not a reason to not implement a very good idea.

        Good executives don’t let the perfect become the enemy of tbe good.

        Despite how horrible Obama is for Israel and many other things he won’t be around much longer. Without Truman and USA Israel wouldn’t exist so save the pretense of moral superiority, and BTW Trump’s supporters are the biggest supporters of Israel in the world.

          You and I can disagree on Trump’s plan till the cows come home. At the moment he is not President, he is not even a politician so anything he says is purely for media attention. He is a jumped-up salesman with a rude attitude, a bullying and boorish way about him and with a very loud mouth who is an attention whore, and is ruining it for the other Republican candidates and for the Republicans in general.

          As soon as the conversation shifts away from him he says something controversial, just like a naughty 2-year old who just cannot bear not being the center of attention.

          That’s how it looks to me from a distance of several thousand miles. You are quite entitled to your opinions, and I’m sure your opinions are more likely to hold sway in America than mine. For starters I can’t vote in America…

          However I strongly resent and totally reject your accusation of my (or is it Israel’s?) “pretense of moral superiority”. Who is claiming moral superiority??

          If you are referring to Bibi, is he not allowed to reject or condemn anything uttered by a foreign personality? Do you think every Israeli PM has to agree with EVERY statement uttered by EVERY American politician?? You really are out of your mind if that is how you think the world works.

          If you are referring to my own opinion, well, it’s a free world and a free internet (for the moment) and I am as entitled to mine as you are to yours. Israel has a lot more experience with Muslims than America does, and I would think that Bibi’s opinions are more realistic than Trump’s.

          Added to that, there is still another whole year of Obama to get through. Why alienate him still further? Who knows if Trump will ever get into power?

          Anyway, it’s not as if Bibi said Trump can’t come to Israel. Bibi rejected his words, not his presence or person. That’s a good deal more gracious than the way he has been treated by your own administration.

          Yes, maybe – maybe – without Truman and the USA Israel wouldn’t have existed. But do not forget that the US had an effective arms embargo on Israel until after 1967. And the US almost let Israel perish in 1973 in the Yom Kippur war until Golda threatened to “bring the house down”.

          Even if we take Truman’s support at face value, that was nearly 70 years ago. To extend that to the present day reveals your own level of ignorance. There are times when America’s “help” is so much of a hindrance to Israel that one could wonder on whose side they really are.

            Ragspierre in reply to Anne in Petah Tikva. | December 11, 2015 at 9:11 am

            Excellent. And amen.

            There is nothing to disagree on regarding Trump’s plan. Your description is not factually correct. You are entitled to your own opinion just not your own facts.

            The reference to pretense of moral superiority was clearly to you personally.

            As for Bibi I completely understand why he did what he did for the same reasons you stated. It was purely a necessary pitical calculation on his part. I and Trump’s supporters like and support Bibi especially over the liberal Israeli alternatives to him.

            70 years ago or not there would be no Israel without Truman and USA. You’re welcome.

            I agree with you that the USA has under some presidents tried too hard to be in the middle between Israel and palestinians. My own personal opinions on these issues had a huge wake up call after watching palestinians on rooftops cheering the 9/11 attacks. My personal opinion is that the USA should halt all aid to palestinians immediately, and that we should tell them there will never be another penny until they cease all violence and attacks for 6 months to one year, swear off all violence against Israel, recognize Israel’s right to exist as a jewish state, stop teaching all the violent and racist anti-jewish anti-Israeli propoganda in their schools.

            As regards your opinions of Mr. Trump, they couldn’t be more wrong but are typical of left wingers in both USA and Israel that have little understanding of real entrepreneurs compared to their love and understanding of socialists and communists.

            Nothing shows the curious confusion of Jewish people more than their voting overwhelmingly for an obvious a nti-semite muslim loving anti Israel socialist/communist Obama TWICE.

            Here is a screengrab from the ABC News report of President Carter’s Iran speech – with a TV caption reading “prohibiting immigration.”

            This was from ABC’s coverage of Democratic President Jimmy Carter’s April 7th, 1980 speech, regarding US cutting relations with the Khomeinist regime in Iran.


            Milhouse in reply to Anne in Petah Tikva. | December 11, 2015 at 2:58 pm

            Truman did nothing to help Israel be established. Israel would have become independent on exactly the same date and time, and would have fared exactly as well, without Truman’s so-called support. The weapons it needed to defend itself did not come from Truman but from Stalin! Truman did everything in his power to disarm the Jews so they would be slaughtered.

            And no, Carter did not prohibit Moslem immigration. Moslems from any country but Iran were welcome. He stopped the issue of new visas to citizens of a single country that had committed an act of war against the USA. Except, that is, for the thousands of refugees that he admitted, which is why there is now a Teherangeles. Nor did he deport all Iranians; only the ones that were here illegally, and thus were subject to deportation anyway.

            Ragspierre in reply to Anne in Petah Tikva. | December 11, 2015 at 3:16 pm

            He also kicked out Iran’s ambassadors to the U.S., imposed sanctions, and seized funds.

            But the irony of Gary (the liar) Britt ALSO citing approvingly to Carter, in addition to FDR, should not be lost on conservatives.


            You are absolutely wrong Millhouse. If not for Truman and the USA Israel would have never been recognized as a country and admitted into the U.N. Without recognition as a country and admission into the U.N. the Israeli freedom fighters would have just continued to be terrorists fighting a civil war in Palestine.

            Knowledge is a powerful thing.

    First of all Gary Britt, you actually made me laugh out loud when you equated me with Leftist progressive Jews. Seriously, LMAO! I am an Orthodox right-wing Zionist Jew living in Israel. I think I know Israel’s mood and opinions slightly better than you do. But whatever… think what you like. I just wanted to set the record straight.

    As for Truman, his recognition of Israel’s establishment, and how Israel would have fared, here is some interesting reading material for you to get your teeth into and maybe get an education, although Milhouse above has done his best, to no avail.
    A short excerpt:

    On the strength of recent military victories in Operation Nahshon, which had opened the Jerusalem corridor, and in order to head off the trusteeship plan, the Zionist General Council declared on April 12 that on termination of the mandate, it would establish a Jewish state in the portion of Palestine allotted to the Jews. On May 4, Dr Jessup of the US delegation to the UN, cabled Dean Rusk that the USSR would recognize such a state, and that it could invoke Article 51 of UN charter to come to the aid of the Jewish state, thereby gaining a foothold for the USSR in the Middle East. Thus, the anti-communism issue that had been invoked by Henderson and Marshall against the Jewish state was now heavily in favor of the state.

    Marshall recalled that he told Moshe Shertok of the Jewish agency on May 8:

    “I …stressed that it was extremely dangerous to base long range policy on temporary military success. There was no doubt that the Jewish army had gained such temporary success but there was no assurance whatever that in the long range the tide might not turn against them. I told Mr. Shertok that they were taking a gamble. If the tide did turn adversely and they came running to us for help they should be placed clearly on notice that there was no warrant to expect help from the United States, which had warned them of the grave risk they were running.”

    It will be recalled, that at Marshall’s initiative, the US State Department had placed an embargo on military shipments to the Middle East in December 1947, which affected the Jews, but not the Arab states.


    From the point of view of the Americans, and world opinion, the creation of Israel was a more or less conscious and willful act that was meant to compensate for the Holocaust. This view has been accepted by the Arabs, who protest that the Palestinians should not have been made to pay for the Holocaust. For his part in the drama, Harry S Truman is revered by Zionists and hated by Arab partisans.

    This view ignores some pertinent facts. After the British Mandate was established, the Jewish Agency came into being as the expression of the administrative arm of the Zionist organization in Palestine. The state had begun to become a reality in the 30s, with its own government institutions, tax system, economic policy, labor unions, embryonic armies, school system and health facilities. The dissolution of the British mandate, like all colonial holdings, was only a matter of time. While the Jews were still a minority in population and land ownership, they already had the major part of the economy of Palestine in their hands, and they were the only well organized national force, and in fact, probably only the Jews had the potential to control the destiny of Palestine, as was shown decisively by the Israeli War of Independence.

    In the final analysis, it seems the US supported partition because there was no real alternative. The British were unwilling and unable to continue the mandate. They could not admit Jewish immigrants in keeping with the terms of the mandate owing to Arab pressure. They could not continue to bar immigration in the face of Jewish pressure and underground resistance. No country, certainly not the US, was willing to send troops to enforce a trusteeship, which would have met the same problems as the mandate, a point that was never raised apparently, but which must’ve come into consideration. The binational state was opposed by both the Arabs and the Jews, and would’ve come apart at the seams as soon as it was established. The “single state for all” proposed by the Arabs, led by Nazi collaborator Haj Amin el Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, was not likely to be a state where Jews would survive in peace, given that Husseini had told the British that his plan for solving the ‘Jewish Problem’ in Palestine was the same as the one adopted by Nazis in Europe. Certainly, such a state would not allow immigration of Jews from Europe, and therefore, a civil war would have ensured whatever decision the UN made, as soon as the British had left. The UN was unwilling and unable to enforce even its decision to partition Jerusalem. No country outside the Middle East was willing to send troops to Palestine after Britain left, so no trusteeship schemes or other alternatives could have been enforced. The Arabs wanted to establish a single state in all Palestine, but they had not the wherewithal even to establish a state in the half granted to the Palestinians. The Jews would certainly have risen against such a state, with effects little different than those that resulted.

    Ami Isseroff

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Anne in Petah Tikva. | December 18, 2015 at 1:37 pm

      The “single state for all” proposed by the Arabs, led by Nazi collaborator Haj Amin el Husseini, Grand Mufti of Jerusalem, was not likely to be a state where Jews would survive in peace, given that Husseini had told the British that his plan for solving the ‘Jewish Problem’ in Palestine was the same as the one adopted by Nazis in Europe.

      When did he say that, and what did he dsay and has was it understood?

      He surely could not have used such words after 1945, and anyway he was on the outs at that time, and the British would not have been dealing with him.

      So he would have said that in 1937 or so.

    Here is more in the same vein. Please note that despite the way the “zionist influence” is mentioned in the article, I fully approve of such. Good for them!

    Many reasons were cited by US officials for immediately recognizing Israel. They argued that the partition of Palestine was a reality as the UN Security Council could not guarantee a truce otherwise, so USA would have to recognize a new state in accordance with UN guidelines. It was also evident that US wanted to get an edge over the Soviet Union by becoming the first nation to recognize Israel. President Truman was also looking for re-election in the next presidential elections by winning the hearts of the Jews living in United States. More than anything else, it was the Zionist pressure that made USA an immediate supporter of the new state

    And one more:

    This universal belief, never challenged by the media, is that the United States was wholly or largely responsible for fully supporting Israel on the ground from the very beginning of its independence in May, 1948.

    The world has been inundated with a tsunami of Arab propaganda and crocodile tears shed for the “Palestinians” who have reveled in what they refer to as their Catastrophe or Holocaust (Nabka in Arabic). Their plight has been accompanied by unremitting criticism that the United States was the principal architect that stood behind Israel from the very beginning with money, manpower and arms. The fact is that President Truman eventually decided against the pro-Arab “professional opinion” of his Secretary of State, General George Marshall and the Arabists of the State Department.

    He accorded diplomatic recognition to the new Jewish state but never considered active military aid. His own memoirs recall how he felt betrayed by State Department officials and the American U.N. Ambassador, Warren Austin who pulled the rug out from under him one day after he promised Zionist leader Chaim Weitzman support for partition.

    American Jewish voting in the 1948 Presidential election leaned heavily for President Truman but also cast a substantial number of votes for third party “Progressive” leader Henry Wallace who had spoken out even more strongly on behalf of American support for the Zionist position and aid to Israel. It was actually not until the administration of President John Kennedy in the early 1960s that American arms shipments were made to Israel.

    Leave a Comment

    Leave a Reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.

    Notify me of followup comments via e-mail (or subscribe without commenting.)

    Font Resize
    Contrast Mode
    Send this to a friend