Caroline Glick: Israel's balance of delusion

A balance of delusion exists in Israeli politics between Left and Right. On the Left, we have leaders who, when given the facts about strategic options, decide they don't like the facts and make new ones up that suit them better. And on the Right, we have leaders who, when given the facts about their political options, decide they don't like the facts and make up new ones that suit them better.

The Left's latest fantasy is its enthusiasm for a deal with Hamas that would free Gilad Schalit. By Tuesday night, Israelis should know whether or not our outgoing leftist government will agree to release between 450 and 1,000 Palestinian terrorists - including mass murderers serving multiple life sentences - in exchange for Schalit whom Hamas and it sister terror groups have held hostage since June 2006.

Schalit's plight presents two stark choices. We can surrender to all of Hamas's demands and reunite Schalit with his suffering family, or we can keep a stiff upper lip, refuse to negotiate with terrorists and wait until we receive actionable intelligence on his whereabouts and attempt to rescue him. We know what will happen in both cases.

If we surrender to Hamas's demands, we will ensure more families will suffer the same plight as Gilad Schalit's family. We know that this will happen because we have been through this process repeatedly. Every single time we have released terrorists for hostages, the result has been more murdered Israelis and more hostages. As before, the only thing we still don't know is the names of the next victims. They could be any of us. And so, in a very real sense, they are all of us.

If on the other hand the outgoing government opted for the stiff upper lip approach, we know that we would increase the chance that Schalit will be murdered. Hamas can kill him at any time. And in the event that the IDF stages a rescue raid, there is a good chance that both Schalit and his rescuers will return to their families in wooden boxes. Then again, we also know that by not negotiating with terrorists, and by keeping jailed terrorists in prison, we stand a better chance of protecting the lives of the rest of us.

Both choices, of course, are miserable ones. But they are the only choices. We can surrender or we can fight. There is no third option.

In keeping though with the Left's penchant for dreaming up imaginary choices, the Kadima-Labor government decided to negotiate Schalit's release with Hamas, but to pretend that in doing so, it is doing something other than surrendering. Rather than admit that by agreeing to release hundreds of murderers from jail he is placing every single family in the country at risk, outgoing Prime Minister Ehud Olmert describes his urgent pleadings to Hamas as a noble gesture towards the Schalit family, a gesture which supposedly gives expression to Judaism's commitment to Jewish captives. That is, he has moved the discussion of the terrorist release from the realm of reality to the realm of metaphysics.

Much to his discredit, Prime Minister-designate Binyamin Netanyahu has refused to criticize the outgoing government's surrender to Hamas. There is some justification for his silence. The media is so adamant about moving forward with the release of mass murderers that were he to speak out, he would set the media against him even before he is sworn in to office. But then again, the overwhelmingly leftist media will treat Netanyahu with hostility regardless of what he does. So it seems unreasonable that he has maintained his silence on this issue.

THE ONE POLITICIAN who has been outspoken in opposing the mass release of terrorists has been MK Ya'acov (Ketzeleh) Katz, the leader of the National Union party. Together with the families of terror victims who oppose the government's intention to release their relatives' murderers, Katz has been the loudest voice in politics stridently opposing the deal. He has made clear that it will endanger the country and guarantee the murder and abduction of still more Israelis.

Katz and the National Union have it right on this issue. Indeed, they have it right on just about every major strategic issue they have championed. From their opposition to the failed Oslo process to their opposition to the failed Camp David summit, from their opposition to the withdrawal from south Lebanon and Gaza to their opposition to the failed road map peace process and the failed Annapolis peace process, the National Union has been right all along. It has always stayed true to its principles.

One might think that given the National Union's consistent track record that it would be the largest party in the Knesset. Surely voters would reward it for its wisdom. But one of course would be wrong.

The National Union received four seats in the Knesset. Its sister party, Habayit Hayehudi won three mandates. The two parties ran separately despite their ideological and cultural affinity because their members simply couldn't get along. They couldn't compromise on who would appear where on the party list.

And this is the beginning of the story.

FOR ALL of its strategic wisdom and clearheadedness, the National Union is a political home for delusional politicians. In all of its various incarnations - from Tehiya to Herut to Moledet to the National Union - the party has never been able to understand what it means to govern. It has never been able to recognize that politics is the art of compromise.

In 1992, angry that Likud under prime minister Yitzhak Shamir bowed to US pressure and participated in the Madrid peace conference, Tehiya brought down his government. In so doing, it brought in Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres and brought the country the Oslo process and Yasser Arafat in Ramallah.

In 1999, angry at Netanyahu for bowing to US pressure and agreeing to the Wye Plantation accords, the National Union brought down his government. In so doing, it brought in Ehud Barak and Yossi Beilin, the withdrawal from Lebanon and the Camp David summit.

In all, the total of Israelis who have been killed due to Oslo, the withdrawal from Lebanon and the Palestinian terror war which followed Camp David comes to around 2,000. The country's weakened position today in the US and Europe as well as in the Arab world, would have been inconceivable in 1992.

In both 1992 and 1999, the National Union and its predecessors were faced with two choices. They could remain ideologically pure by bringing down their own government and so risk empowering the Left, or they could recognize that governance is the art of compromise, keep a stiff upper lip and work from within the government to mitigate the strategic damage that in their view Shamir and Netanyahu caused by bowing to American pressure.

And in both cases, the National Union rejected its real choices in favor of an imaginary one. Both in 1992 and 1999 it chose to leave the government while pretending that there was no difference between Likud and Labor. By choosing this route, it effectively committed itself to strategic as well as political blindness since it was forced to claim - wrongly - that there was no difference between Madrid and Oslo or between Wye Plantation and Camp David.

Last Friday it was disclosed that on Wednesday afternoon, Netanyahu had reopened coalition talks with Kadima leader Tzipi Livni. Those talks had ended weeks ago after Livni demanded that Netanyahu agree to share the premiership with her through a rotation agreement, give her full control over strategy for dealing with the Palestinians and adopt the establishment of a Palestinian state as the primary goal of his government. All of Livni's demands were nonnegotiable and all of them, both separately and together, were unacceptable for Netanyahu. And so, he rejected them and for the past two and a half weeks has been concentrating his efforts on building a governing coalition with the right wing and religious parties.

AVIGDOR LIEBERMAN's Israel Beiteinu with its 15 Knesset seats is set to be Likud's main coalition partner. Lieberman has been the most outspoken champion of a Likud-Kadima-Israel Beiteinu coalition. This makes sense from his perspective. Lieberman is viewed both by the West and by much of the country's leftist elite as a racist. Due both to his legal worries and to the fact that his actual policy preferences of surrendering the Galilee and the Negev to the Arabs are far left of center, Lieberman cares deeply about what the Left thinks of him. In his view, the only way to be accepted as legitimate in leftist circles is to compel Likud to move to the left by bringing Kadima into the government.

In part to satisfy Lieberman - without whom he cannot form a government - and in part because he remembers that it was the National Union which brought down his government 10 years ago, Netanyahu began his coalition building talks with Kadima. They collapsed only because Livni made demands that he could not meet.

In the current round of talks, Livni has reportedly maintained her demands, but now Netanyahu is reportedly accepting them - at least partially. The question that needs to be asked is what has changed in three weeks? Why has Netanyahu decided that Livni's previously unacceptable demands are now acceptable? The only reasonable answer is the National Union. Last week Katz scuttled negotiations with Likud because it refused his demand for the Construction and Housing Ministry. On Thursday, he joined hands with Habayit Hayehudi chairman MK Daniel Herschkowitz and announced that neither of the two parties would join Netanyahu's government if he doesn't meet all of their demands, including the Ministry of Education for Herschkowitz. Without the two parties, Netanyahu lacks a parliamentary majority.

It is possible that Katz and Herschkowitz are bluffing. In fact, it is likely that they are. But what their behavior shows clearly is that Netanyahu is correct when he says that a coalition that relies on them is inherently unstable. And so, he has moved back into Kadima's orbit.

If the Olmert-Livni-Barak government goes ahead with its plans to spring hundreds of mass murderers from prison in its last days in office, the threat they will unleash will just be added to the long list of serious threats that our strategically delusional leftist government has created and expanded during its tenure in office. It would be the height of irony - and tragedy - if due to the Right's proven political incompetence, the same political Left remains in power as the main partners in the Netanyahu government and so be given yet another opportunity to ruin the country.

Correction: In my Friday column, "Intelligence and the anti-Israel lobby" I misidentified Douglas Jehl as a Washington Post editor. Jehl is an editor at The New York Times.

caroline@carolineglick.com

Terror Update: Use of Mosques for Military and Political Purposes

This report clarifies the recent use of mosques for military and political purposes by Hamas and other Islamic terrorist groups.

As a reminder: according to the international laws governing armed conflict, religious houses of worship, including mosques, that are used for military purposes lose the special protection afforded houses of worship and may become legitimate targets for attack by military forces.

In photos: Weapons found in mosques during Operation Cast Lead. The pulpit in the Al-Atatra mosque in the northern Gaza Strip. Kalashnikov assault rifle, vest and binoculars found hidden under the pulpit on February 14, 2009. Store of rockets found by the IDF in a mosque in the Zeitun neighborhood in Gaza City.

1. Operation Cast Lead illustrated the varied military uses made by Hamas of the mosques under its control in the Gaza Strip. During the operation evidence (which was extensively documented by the Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center) was found about the storage of weapons in mosques (rockets, IEDs, light arms and even an anti-aircraft gun), and about using the mosques for military training and as bases from which to launch rockets into Israel and mortar shells at IDF forces nearby.

2. The extensive use made of mosques by terrorist organizations and radical Islamic groups for military, terrorist and political purposes is not limited to the Gaza Strip . This study also examines similar uses made by Hamas in Judea and Samaria, Hezbollah in south Lebanon, and global jihad and other radical Islamic groups in various countries around the Arab-Muslim world (in conflict focal points such as Iraq and Pakistan) and even in the Muslim communities in Europe. In many locations both in the Middle East and beyond, radical Islamic terrorist organizations exploit the mosques to hide weapons, organize in preparation for attacks, enlist supporters and terrorist operatives, preach terrorism and indoctrinate Muslims who come to worship with hatred for Israel, the Jewish people, the West in general and the United States in particular, as well as for pro-Western Arab and Islamic regimes.

3. The study also examines the religious and social roots of the use of mosques for military and political purposes. Senior Islamic clerics, both Sunni and Shi'ite (particularly the Sunni sheikh Yussuf Qardawi and the Shi'ite Ayatollah Khamenei), repeatedly claim that making such use of the mosques for jihad objectives is legitimate according to Islamic point of view. They also encourage their use for spreading jihad ideology and terrorism ( muqawamah , i.e., “resistance”) against the enemies of Islam . Their religious views are based on the Islamic oral traditions ( hadiths ) which say that the prophet Muhammad himself used a mosque for military and political purposes, beyond the classic use of the mosque as house of worship.

4. The use made by terrorist organizations of mosques for military purposes and as launching pads for terrorist attacks is liable to endanger innocent civilians who have no link to the organizations. It harms the status and special protection afforded houses of worship by international laws of armed combat, as well as the protection afforded civilian structures and the civilian population in general. The laws of armed conflict unequivocally state that houses of worship used for military purposes lose their right to protection and thus expose themselves to attack . Hamas and Islamic terrorist groups claim that attacking mosques (even though they were put to military-terrorist purposes) is illegal and is an infringement of the freedom of worship. Those claims, aimed primarily at Western ears where public opinion regards the mosques as places used exclusively for religious purposes, are worthless. The measures taken by the IDF in the Gaza Strip against mosques used for military purposes, as well as those taken by other countries, including, for example, the United States in Iraq, were in accordance with international law and arose from the natural commitment of any state to defend its citizens .

5. The legitimate battle against the military and political use made of mosques by terrorist organizations and radical Islamic elements has been waged in various ways: during Operation Cast Lead in the Gaza Strip , the IDF attacked mosques used for such purposes by Hamas; in Iraq , the United States attacked mosques in Fallujah and other cities because they were being used as military bases by insurgents and other terrorist elements; in Judea and Samaria the Palestinian Authority invaded mosques controlled by Hamas and confiscated weapons and propaganda materials, and detained clerics; in Pakistan the regime was forced to take over the entire Red Mosque precinct in Islamabad, where radical Islamic activities were being held and from which terrorist groups affiliated with the global jihad launched their attacks.

6. Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia have been forced to impose close security supervision on the mosques which are home to global jihad groups whose activities are also directed against the host countries (the sheikh of Al-Azhar mosque, Muhammad Al-Tantawi, who is a senior religious authority in the Sunni Muslim world, determined that a country has the full right to attack a mosque to preserve its security interests ). In addition, European countries (especially Britain ) and the United States were also forced to impose close security supervision on mosques which had become focal points for global jihad incitement and terrorist activities, especially after September 11, 2001 .

7. The radical Islamist terrorist exploitation of mosques for military and political purposes can be expected to continue. The struggle against such exploitation has met several serious difficulties, especially since in many places Islamic terrorist organizations enjoy great popularity with those who come to the mosques (popularity which is sometimes greater than that of the countries and regimes fighting terrorism, each in its own way). Nevertheless, the struggle must be continued in a variety of ways as an integral part of the global war against terrorism and its various manifestations.

Click Here To View Entire Reports in PDF Format

Study Chapters Include:

I: The use made by Hamas of mosques in the Gaza Strip for military and political purposes

1. Background information

2. Military use of mosques during Operation Cast Lead and other IDF operations in the Gaza Strip

3. False representation of IDF attacks on mosques used by Hamas in its propaganda war against Israel

4. Political incitement and propaganda

II: The use made by Hamas of mosques in Judea and Samaria for military and political purposes

1. Propaganda, incitement and terrorist activity in mosques during the violent campaign against Israel (the second intifada)

2. Mahmoud Abbas's activities against Hama 's influence in the mosques in Judea and Samaria

III: The use made by Hezbollah of mosques in south Lebanon for military purposes

IV: The use made of mosques in the Arab and Muslim world for military and political purposes

1. General information

2. Iraq

3. Saudi Arabia

4. Pakistan

5. Muslim communities in Europe and the United States

6. Virtual mosques

V: Religious and social roots of the use of mosques for political purposes

1. The role of the mosque in Muslim society since the beginning of Islam

2. Religious views voiced by leading Muslim clerics, both Sunni and Shi'ite, in favor of using mosques for military and political purposes


Source: Intelligence and Terrorism Information Center at the Israel Intelligence Heritage & Commemoration Center (IICC)

Philippe Karsenty: Al Dura Fraud Update

From: "Philippe Karsenty"
Subject: Al Dura story: new strong allies and next actions scheduled

Dear friends,

I'm writing to inform you of a new documentary by the German public TV station ARD as well as unprecedented support from the Israeli minister of Foreign Affairs.

The German public TV, ARD, broadcast, on March 4, 2009, a documentary which confirms that the news report, narrated by Charles Enderlin and broadcast by France 2 on September 30, 2000, is a fraud.

Here is the evidence revealed, and confirmed, by this documentary:

Thanks to a biometric analysis of the faces, it has been proven that the boy who was filmed by France 2 is not the boy presented at the Gaza morgue and buried later. The eyebrows and the lips are very different.

• The German TV used the lip-reading technique to read the father's lips. They discovered that Jamal al Dura gave instructions to the people who were behind France 2's cameraman during the filming of the scene.

• The boy filmed by France 2 moves a red piece of cloth down his body for no specific reason.

• In France 2's news report, there is no blood - neither on Mohammed nor on Jamal al Dura's body, whereas the two were supposed to have received 15 bullets all together.

• The boy shown at the funeral as Mohammed al Dura arrived at the hospital before 10am, whereas France 2's news report was filmed after 2:30pm.

German media outlets widely covered the ARD documentary. Specifically, the prestigious Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung published two pieces about the film.

On the Israeli side, things are heading in the right direction.

During my recent speaking tour in Israel, I met many Israeli officials, as well as many members of the coming Netanyahu administration. Their reaction was very positive: "The al Dura story has to be solved once and for all and pretty soon".

Though he had not been very encouraging after France 2's defeat, I met the spokesperson of the Israeli minister of Foreign Affairs, Yigal Palmor. The meeting was warm and friendly. For the first time, Yigal Palmor had access to most of the documentation gathered about the al Dura story. After our meeting, Palmor said that he was "very impressed by the remarkable work achieved" where he found "no mistakes".

Nevertheless, Palmor stated that his minister doesn't intend to sue France 2 because "it's not a habit, nor part of diplomacy". Nevertheless, Mr Palmor authorized the publication of Israel's minister of Foreign Affairs' major change of attitude about the al Dura story which "played a major role in the demonization of the State of Israel."

Next actions scheduled

• In order to present the most recent information available and to answer questions from journalists, I'll hold a press conference on May 31st in Paris where the most important parts of the German documentary will be screened. In order to attend this press conference, please send your contact info at: confpresse@m-r.fr

• Screenings will soon be organized in France and all over Europe in order to present the evidence of the al Dura story that is sinking France 2. If you would like to be invited, please send your complete contact info to: presentations@m-r.fr

• DVDs of the German documentary, with explanations, will soon be sent to French and European members of parliament.

Please, spread this message as much as you can.

Merci et à bientôt,

Philippe

JOHN BOLTON: TEAM OBAMA'S ANTI-ISRAEL TURN

THE Obama administration is increasingly fixed on resolving the "Arab-Is raeli dispute," seeing it as the key to peace and stability in the Middle East. This is bad news for Israel - and for America.

In its purest form, this theory holds that, once Israel and its neighbors come to terms, all other regional conflicts can be duly resolved: Iran's nuclear-weapons program, fanatical anti-Western terrorism, Islam's Sunni-Shiite schism, Arab-Persian ethnic tensions.

Some advocates believe substantively that the overwhelming bulk of other Middle Eastern grievances, wholly or partly, stem from Israel's founding and continued existence. Others see it in process terms - how to "sequence" dispute resolutions, so that Arab-Israeli progress facilitates progress elsewhere.

Pursuing this talisman has long characterized many European leaders and their soulmates on the American left. The Mideast "peace process" is thus the ultimate self-licking ice cream cone - its mere existence being its basic justification.

And now the Obama administration has made it US policy. This is evidenced by two key developments: the appointment of former Sen. George Mitchell as special envoy for the region, and Secretary of State Hillary's Clinton's recent insistence on a "two-state solution" sooner rather than later.

Naming Mitchell as a high-level, single-issue envoy - rather than keeping the portfolio under Secretary Clinton's personal control - separates Israel from the broader conduct of US diplomacy. Mitchell's role underlines both the issue's priority in the president's eyes and the implicit idea it can be solved in the foreseeable future.

Obama and Mitchell have every incentive to strike a Middle East deal - both to vindicate themselves and, in their minds, to create a basis for further "progress." But there are few visible incentives for any particular substantive outcome - which is very troubling for Israel, since Mitchell's mission essentially replicates in high-profile form exactly the approach the State Department has followed for decades.

When appointed, Mitchell said confidently: "Conflicts are created, conducted and sustained by human beings. They can be ended by human beings." This is true, however, only if the conflict's substantive resolution is less important than the process point of "ending" it one way or another. Surrender, for example, is a guaranteed way to end conflict.

Here, Clinton's strident insistence on a "two-state solution" during her recent Mideast trip becomes important. She essentially argued predestination: the "inevitability" of moving toward two states is "inescapable," and "there is no time to waste." The political consequence is clear: Since the outcome is inevitable and time is short, there is no excuse for not making "progress." Delay is evidence of obstructionism and failure - something President Obama can't tolerate, for the sake of his policies and his political reputation.

In this very European view, failure on the Arab-Israeli front presages failure elsewhere. Accordingly, the Obama adminstration has created a negotiating dynamic that puts increasing pressure on Israel, Palestinians, Syria and others.

Almost invariably, Israel is the loser - because Israel is the party most dependent on the United States, most subject to US pressure and most susceptible to the inevitable chorus of received wisdom from Western diplomats, media and the intelligentsia demanding concessions. When pressure must be applied to make compromises, it's always easier to pressure the more reasonable side.

How will diplomatic pressure work to change Hamas or Hezbollah, where even military force has so far failed? If anything, one can predict coming pressure on Israel to acknowledge the legitimacy of these two terrorist groups, and to negotiate with them as equals (albeit perhaps under some artful camouflage). The pattern is so common that its reappearance in the Mitchell-led negotiations is what is really "inevitable" and "inescapable."

Why would America subject a close ally to this dynamic, playing with the security of an unvarying supporter in world affairs? For America, Israel's intelligence-sharing, military cooperation and significant bilateral economic ties, among many others, are important national-security assets that should not lightly be put at risk.

The only understandable answer is that the Obama administration believes that Israel is as much or more of a problem as it is an ally, at least until Israel's disagreements with its neighbors are resolved. Instead of seeing Israel as a national-security asset, the administration likely sees a relationship complicating its broader policy of diplomatic "outreach."

No one will say so publicly, but this is the root cause of Obama's "Arab-Israeli issues first" approach to the region.

This approach is exactly backward. All the other regional problems would still exist even if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad got his fondest wish and Israel disappeared from the map: Iran's nuclear-weapons program, its role as the world's central banker for terrorism, the Sunni-Shiite conflict within Islam, Sunni terrorist groups like al Qaeda and other regional ethnic, national and political animosities would continue as threats and risks for decades to come.

Instead, the US focus should be on Iran and the manifold threats it poses to Israel, to Arab states friendly to Washington and to the United States itself - but that is not to be.

President Obama argues that he will deal comprehensively with the entire region. Rhetoric is certainly his specialty, but in the Middle East rhetoric only lasts so long. Performance is the real measure - and the administration's performance to date points in only one direction: pressuring Israel while wooing Iran.

Others in the world - friend and foe alike - will draw their own conclusions.

Former UN Ambassador John Bolton is an American Enterprise Institute senior fellow.

Dr. David Medved, 83 - Man of Family & Science, a Zionist, a Jew

To our dear friends Jonathan, Michael and their brothers and families we send wishes of condolence on the loss of your father, Dr. David Medved of blessed memory.

Your father was a great man who contributed in countless ways to science and society - his family is testimony to his greatness.

We had the honor and privilege of meeting Dr. David zt"l more than once. His words of wisdom, sincerity of purpose and honest care for the advancement and prosperity of others is impossible to quantify. His steadfast belief in Israel and the Jewish people was inspiring.

His influence on our lives and the lives of our children will be with us forever...

May you be comforted from Heaven with all those who mourn Zion and Jerusalem...

David Medved, scientist and entrepreneur, dies at 83

Mar. 12, 2009

THE JERUSALEM POST

Dr. David Medved, a physicist and scientist-astronaut who celebrated his second bar mitzva a week before his death on Wednesday at 83, was buried on Thursday at the Har Menuchot cemetery in Jerusalem.

In the 1950s, decades before US president Ronald Reagan announced the "Star Wars" missile defense program, Medved took his doctorate from the University of Pennsylvania to General Dynamics, where he developed systems to destroy intercontinental ballistic missiles in mid-flight.

His work on the NASA Gemini space program was noticed by astronaut Neil Armstrong, who persuaded him to try out for a planned two-year mission to Mars, as a scientist-astronaut. Though he went through the rigorous training for the mission, minor health problems and the project's cancelation meant that he never made it into space.

In 1990 at age 64, after teaching physics at UCLA and a successful entrepreneurial career in the United States - where he built and sold two start-up companies in electro-optics - Medved moved to Israel, where he founded JOLT, Jerusalem Optical Link Technologies. The optical data transfer company was sold to MRV Communications in 2000 and still operates in Jerusalem. Medved served as MRV's chief scientist until just a few months before his death.

Last year, Toby Press published a book by Medved titled Hidden Light: Science Secrets of the Bible. He is survived by four sons: Jerusalem-based venture capitalist Jonathan Medved, and in the US, by author and talk-radio host Michael Medved (http://www.michaelmedved.com/), media critic Harry Medved, and psychologist Benjamin Medved.

The Happy Astronaut by Rabbi Daniel Lapin

Take this simple quiz:

Does (a) or (b) more accurately describe your emotional state most of the time.

(a) I am happy.
(b) I would be happy if ______(fill in whatever applies for you)

Our first president’s wife, Martha Washington, also took this quiz. Here is how she answered.

I am determined to be cheerful and happy in whatever situation I may find myself. For I have learned that the greater part of our misery or unhappiness is determined not by our circumstance but by our disposition.

Amazingly, in Deuteronomy chapter 16, God instructs us, “….and you should be only happy.” Unlike some of God’s directives, whose benefits we don’t immediately see, this one seems easy to understand.

For starters, being a happy person means you’re practicing spiritual hygiene and refraining from polluting the environment. That makes people enjoy being around you since most folks loathe being around the unpleasant aura of self-indulgent misery. And certainly the general air of well being and bonhomie that emanates from your happy soul impacts your body, making for lower stress and better health. You also remain young looking for longer.

But God does not merely direct us to be happy. Presenting an agonizing list of hideously horrid consequences, in Deuteronomy chapter 28, He informs us why He brings these curses. The first reason is because “You didn’t listen to the voice of the Lord, your God and keep His commandments.

The second is the one that concerns us now: “Because you didn’t serve the Lord, your God with happiness and with a glad heart on account of all the abundance.”

So, listening to the word of God is a good start but we also had better learn to do so joyously. It is hard to think of any way you could more easily and more immediately impact every area of your life for good than by choosing to be happy—even if at first it takes great effort and even perhaps a little faking. You will see your social life (not to mention your marital life) improve, see your health improve, and improve your relationship with God.

Paradoxically, when happiness is your natural state, you are more acutely tuned in to appropriate sadness.

Yesterday morning, Dr. David Medved, father of my dear friends, Michael, Jon, and Harry Medved, passed away in Jerusalem. But he was much more to me than the father of my friends. He was a dear friend who throughout his life validated every detail of what I am telling you in this Thought Tool.

I met David Medved when he joined the fledgling synagogue that his son Michael and I established near the beach in west Los Angeles. As the most senior member of a synagogue of mostly young Jews rediscovering their heritage, he was often my main resource for wisdom along with fierce and independent leadership. With his courage and intuitive sense of right, more than once he saved my rabbinic skin. But our relationship was also deeply personal.

My wife, Susan, and I asked him to drive us to our wedding reception for no other reason than his warm ebullience was exactly what we wanted to bask in during our marriage celebrations. From then onwards, he was a frequent and, on account of how happy he made all in his company feel, a very welcome guest at our Shabbat table until he moved to Jerusalem.

One summer I fulfilled my dream of sailing under the Golden Gate Bridge. I invited five friends from my synagogue to help me crew my small sailboat up the California coast from its home port in Marina del Rey to the San Francisco Bay. Though almost double the age of the other fellows, Dr. Medved was the toughest, most reliable, and most fun-loving man on that rough, coastal jaunt. Over the ensuing years, his rollicking recounting of that boisterous trip, including his unplanned leap overboard, brought joy to every audience.

Fueled by his happiness, to his final days he was an indefatigable hiker. With his youthful good looks and physical vitality, he was a perfect match for the ancient Judean Hills around his Jerusalem home.

David Medved was a brilliant physicist who had been part of an early NASA astronaut training program. After joining our young synagogue he quickly became a committed Jew and a serious Bible scholar. Only a few years ago he authored a remarkable book on science and the Bible. He was a business professional, an engineer, an accomplished public speaker, and a Jewish leader of renown.

He was a devoted father to his four remarkable sons, a loving father-in-law and grandfather. But above all, he radiated a constant love of life, and his ever-present thousand kilowatt smile brought happiness to all who knew him.

In the words of the traditional condolence formula used for millennia, may the All Present One comfort you, Michael, Jon, Ben, and Harry, among the other mourners of Zion and Jerusalem.

Source: http://www.rabbidaniellapin.com/

Obama: Pro-Israel talk, anti-Israel walk

By Adam Hasner

Barely a month into the presidency of Barack Obama, a profound realization is spreading among the pro-Israel community: we do not have an ally in the White House. The growing threat that Israel and the Jewish People now face demands an immediate acceptance of the "facts on the ground" regarding President Obama's perspective and agenda, and decisive action to prevent the frightening reality that he may play a leading role in creating.

So how exactly did this get by most Jewish voters during last year's election? While some, including this author, warned of his dubious associations and likely course of action regarding Israel, Obama brilliantly pandered to Jewish crowds around the country with his scripted and amorphous proclamations of support for Israel, while utilizing an array of prominent Jewish surrogates in order to avoid any real accountability.

Under the new Obama administration, our federal government is now beginning to comfortably operate within the realm of the anti-Israel perspective espoused by the likes of Mearsheimer and Walt, who argue that the political clout of American Jews is used to manipulate U.S. foreign policy in favor of Israel at the expense of broader American interests. On one hand, President Obama receives advice on Israel, Iran and the entire Middle East from advisors such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, Samantha Power, and Chas Freeman, all of whom possess strong anti-Israel biases that are well documented. Freeman, whose nomination to a top intelligence post faces growing criticism, was quoted as saying "the primary reason America confronts a terrorism problem today... is the brutal oppression of the Palestinians by an Israeli occupation." As if that were not bad enough, even Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is apparently now joining the fray with her recent remarks intended to unduly pressure Israel.

On the other hand, there is also a faction of prominent Jewish politicians who don't seem willing to speak out against the President's judgment or the actions we are now witnessing. While allowing President Obama to tout their Jewish identities for political gain, these politicians are also helping the Administration to confer mainstream status and legitimacy upon treacherous new Jewish agencies like J-Street, whose vision for Israel more readily identifies with that of her enemies. Combined, the forces at work within the Executive branch are helping to create conditions that will allow President Obama to force dangerous concessions upon Israel.

The policies put forth by President Obama during his first 30 days in office paint a disturbing picture as well. In light of his first Presidential news interview having been granted to the Al-Arabia television network, his first head-of-state phone call placed to Mahmoud Abbas, and his allocation of $20 million dollars of taxpayer money to resettling Palestinians with ties to Hamas in the United States, what we have witnessed is a clear pattern of taking the pressure off terrorist groups, the Islamist regimes that support them and other tyrants who hate Israel and America in favor of offering them legitimacy and leniency. The growing danger of the Iranians and their nuclear weapons program, along with the network of villains they are organizing and arming, are without a doubt today's greatest threat to America, Israel and the Western World. As President Obama offers the Iranians more time, despite plenty of credible evidence that their nuclear weapons program is speeding ahead, he is also granting a reprieve to their vicious surrogates. For example, numerous overtures and contacts are taking place between the Administration and the Al-Assad regime, less than a year and a half after Israel was forced to destroy Syria's secret nuclear reactor facility built by the North Koreans.

Another Iranian proxy, the Hamas terror organization, is also benefiting from President Obama's appeasement and accommodation. Special Middle-East Envoy George Mitchell recently signaled U.S. approval for Hamas to join in governing the Palestinian Authority. That is in addition to the $900 million in U.S. taxpayer money that will shortly be gifted to Hamas-controlled Gaza for "aid," which will only help to ensure that the terrorists need not spend their own money on anything other than arms and death. Once Hamas is finally legitimized, which now appears to be likely, one can only imagine how their international acceptance will adversely impact the prospect of peace.

Anti-Israelism and other forms of latent anti-Semitism have also received a boost from President Obama's initial decision to send a delegation to the negotiation sessions of the upcoming Durban II conference. The U.S. representatives' silence in the face of repeated attempts to demonize Israel and vilify Zionism did plenty to gratify the gathering of wolves, before the President ultimately realized that America's presence was making things worse rather than better. The damage has been done however, and while the U.S. has indicated after the fact that it likely will not participate in the plenary session, many nations that would have otherwise followed the U.S. in boycotting Durban II will now be lending their credence. Israel's supporters must understand that this set of circumstances significantly helps our enemies' effort to delegitimize Israel's right to exist by harkening back to the "Zionism is racism" days of U.N. Resolution 3379.

In looking squarely ahead to the grave challenges we face on the horizon, it is important to keep in mind that we are still early in the new President's term, and that there are a variety of ways to demand action on the promises we were assured of during his campaign. To begin, we must call upon pro-Israel Congressional leaders and Jewish activists - those who supported President Obama and those who didn't - to hold him to his word and protect the America-Israel relationship. We cannot afford to be passive in performing this task. Where there is inaction or resistance, we must withhold all support from politicians who won't stand up to the Administration's harmful policies. The solemn oath of "Never Again" must not be forgotten in our time.

Florida State Representative Adam Hasner (R-Boca Raton) is the Majority Leader of the Florida House of Representatives. He served as the Jewish Outreach Chairman in Florida for McCain/Palin during the 2008 election. He can be reached at adamhasner@hasner.org