SCOTUS Says Lower Courts Can Rule On Jerusalem-Born Americans Listing Israel As Birthplace

Well, here's some good news to start the day!

You may recall the case of Menachem Zivotofsky, a child who was born in a hospital in West Jerusalem and whose parents wanted to list Jerusalem, Israel as his birthplace.

When his parents, Ari and Naomi Zivotofsky, went to U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv to apply for a passport for their son and asked that his country of birth be listed as Israel. The embassy refused, citing State Department policy that such passports list only 'Jerusalem,' with no country added.

So they sued.

Congress had already made a law permitting this in 2002, the same year Menachem was born, that required the State Department to list the country of origin as Israel on passports and birth certificates if a Jerusalem-born applicant requests it. Typically, President George W. Bush signed the bill but included a signing statement is that he considered this an unconstitutional breech of the president's "power to recognize foreign sovereigns."

Given it's feelings about Israel, I'm sure it's no surprise that the Obama Administration has gone the same way, allowing special 'rules' to be applied to Israel that are not applied to any other area in the world with 'disputed' territory between tow or more nations. For instance, an American born in Taipei, Taiwan can list his country of birth as either China, Taiwan, or The Republic of China (ROC), Taiwan's official name. And to add insult to injury,the State Department permits Arabs born in what is now Israel prior to 1948 the option to have written on their documents that they were born in 'Palestine', a country that didn't exist then and doesn't exist now.

The lower courts refused to actually rule on the suit, claiming that it was a foreign policy issue and an issue of separation of powers between the legislative and executive branch, not of tort law.

But in a victory for the Zivotofskys, the Supreme Court sent it back to the lower courts, stating they can and must rule on this matter of law...by an 8-1 majority.

Do I have to tell anyone that the lone dissenting voice was Justice Breyer, one of three Jews currently on the Court?

Chief Justice John Roberts,who wrote the majority opinion stated: “The courts are fully capable of determining whether this statute may be given effect, or instead must be struck down in light of authority conferred on the executive by the Constitution."

“The federal courts are not being asked to supplant a foreign policy decision of the political branches with the courts’ own unmoored determination of what the United States policy toward Jerusalem should be,” Roberts said. “Instead, Zivotofsky requests that the courts enforce a specific statutory right. To resolve his claim, the judiciary must decide if Zivotofsky’s interpretation of the statute is correct, and whether the statute is constitutional. This is a familiar judicial exercise.”

So the lower court will have to rule on this now.

Given that this is discriminatory, I can't see how the appellate court could rule against them based on the equal protection clause.

Kol Hakavod!

SCOTUS Says Lower Courts Can Rule On Jerusalem-Born Americans Listing Israel As Birthplace

Well, here's some good news to start the day!

You may recall the case of Menachem Zivotofsky, a child who was born in a hospital in West Jerusalem and whose parents wanted to list Jerusalem, Israel as his birthplace.

When his parents, Ari and Naomi Zivotofsky, went to U.S. Embassy in Tel Aviv to apply for a passport for their son and asked that his country of birth be listed as Israel. The embassy refused, citing State Department policy that such passports list only 'Jerusalem,' with no country added.

So they sued.

Congress had already made a law permitting this in 2002, the same year Menachem was born, that required the State Department to list the country of origin as Israel on passports and birth certificates if a Jerusalem-born applicant requests it. Typically, President George W. Bush signed the bill but included a signing statement is that he considered this an unconstitutional breech of the president's "power to recognize foreign sovereigns."

Given it's feelings about Israel, I'm sure it's no surprise that the Obama Administration has gone the same way, allowing special 'rules' to be applied to Israel that are not applied to any other area in the world with 'disputed' territory between tow or more nations. For instance, an American born in Taipei, Taiwan can list his country of birth as either China, Taiwan, or The Republic of China (ROC), Taiwan's official name. And to add insult to injury,the State Department permits Arabs born in what is now Israel prior to 1948 the option to have written on their documents that they were born in 'Palestine', a country that didn't exist then and doesn't exist now.

The lower courts refused to actually rule on the suit, claiming that it was a foreign policy issue and an issue of separation of powers between the legislative and executive branch, not of tort law.

But in a victory for the Zivotofskys, the Supreme Court sent it back to the lower courts, stating they can and must rule on this matter of law...by an 8-1 majority.

Do I have to tell anyone that the lone dissenting voice was Justice Breyer, one of three Jews currently on the Court?

Chief Justice John Roberts,who wrote the majority opinion stated: “The courts are fully capable of determining whether this statute may be given effect, or instead must be struck down in light of authority conferred on the executive by the Constitution."

“The federal courts are not being asked to supplant a foreign policy decision of the political branches with the courts’ own unmoored determination of what the United States policy toward Jerusalem should be,” Roberts said. “Instead, Zivotofsky requests that the courts enforce a specific statutory right. To resolve his claim, the judiciary must decide if Zivotofsky’s interpretation of the statute is correct, and whether the statute is constitutional. This is a familiar judicial exercise.”

So the lower court will have to rule on this now.

Given that this is discriminatory, I can't see how the appellate court could rule against them based on the equal protection clause.

Kol Hakavod!

De Facto Sharia Costs Dearborn Michigan $100K

That's the ruling from a judge in Detroit on a case that determined that the decision by police in neighboring Dearborn to arrest a Christian pastor who wanted to hand out Christian tracts at the city’s Arab fest in 2009 was illegal.

After Judge R. Steven Whalen ruled that the City of Dearborn violated the First Amendment rights of Sudanese Christian Pastor George Saieg, his attorneys requested that Dearborn pay the legals costs incurred in their defending Pastor Saieg, and Judge Whalen awarded $103,401.96 in fees and costs to be awarded to attorney Robert J. Muise.

Since Muise was working on behalf of the Thomas More Law Center at the time, the fees will go to them.

Muise now works with heavyweight attorney David Yerushalmi in the American Freedom Law Center, a new law firm that fights for faith and freedoms through litigation, public policy initiatives and other activities.

“The award of attorney fees in this case,” he said, “is critical in the lawfare against civilization jihad and dhimmitization, or subjugation, of an entire municipality in Michigan. Dearborn has a long record of this kind of illegal, heavy-handed treatment of Christians as an attempt to placate Dearborn’s Shariah-faithful [Muslims]. The court’s ruling today demonstrates that this kind of behavior will come at great cost.”

The judge said in the order, “In this case, the plaintiff received the full relief he sought – an invalidation of the leafleting restriction and a permanent injunction barring its enforcement. … Because this result ‘cannot fairly be labeled as anything short of excellent, [plaintiff] is entitled to a fully compensatory fee.’”

The Saieg case was just one of several that have developed in recent years because of the city of Dearborn’s special protections for Islam at the festival, at the cost of those who would speak of, or hand out information about, other religions.

Muise, in fact, recently won acquittals on charges of “disturbing the peace” brought by Dearborn against a group of Christians after they were arrested by Dearborn police in 2010 for a similar kind of speech activity.

The Detroit News had reported that officials for a pro-Islamic advocacy organization accused the Christians of not playing by the rules of the Arab fest. The report said members of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations accused the Christians of passing out missionary literature at the festival in violation of rules that required them either to pass out the materials from a “paid booth” or “outside of the festival area.”

Whalen said Saieg and his Arabic Christian Perspective organization sued Dearborn and its police chief, Ron Hadda, because after distributing Christian information at the event for several years, he was told police would arrest him if he gave information to anyone at the Arab fest.

Heh!

'Dearbornistan', as it's known locally has been notorious for this kind of discriminatory behavior for some time,aided and abetted by Chief Hadda and Dearborn's dhimmi Mayor Jack O'Reilly.

Of course, in a egregious civil rights violation like this, the Pastor would normally be represented by civil rights attorneys from our Department of Justice if we had a DOJ that was actually concerned about civil rights rather than appeasing Islam.

But we don't.

De Facto Sharia Costs Dearborn Michigan $100K

That's the ruling from a judge in Detroit on a case that determined that the decision by police in neighboring Dearborn to arrest a Christian pastor who wanted to hand out Christian tracts at the city’s Arab fest in 2009 was illegal.

After Judge R. Steven Whalen ruled that the City of Dearborn violated the First Amendment rights of Sudanese Christian Pastor George Saieg, his attorneys requested that Dearborn pay the legals costs incurred in their defending Pastor Saieg, and Judge Whalen awarded $103,401.96 in fees and costs to be awarded to attorney Robert J. Muise.

Since Muise was working on behalf of the Thomas More Law Center at the time, the fees will go to them.

Muise now works with heavyweight attorney David Yerushalmi in the American Freedom Law Center, a new law firm that fights for faith and freedoms through litigation, public policy initiatives and other activities.

“The award of attorney fees in this case,” he said, “is critical in the lawfare against civilization jihad and dhimmitization, or subjugation, of an entire municipality in Michigan. Dearborn has a long record of this kind of illegal, heavy-handed treatment of Christians as an attempt to placate Dearborn’s Shariah-faithful [Muslims]. The court’s ruling today demonstrates that this kind of behavior will come at great cost.”

The judge said in the order, “In this case, the plaintiff received the full relief he sought – an invalidation of the leafleting restriction and a permanent injunction barring its enforcement. … Because this result ‘cannot fairly be labeled as anything short of excellent, [plaintiff] is entitled to a fully compensatory fee.’”

The Saieg case was just one of several that have developed in recent years because of the city of Dearborn’s special protections for Islam at the festival, at the cost of those who would speak of, or hand out information about, other religions.

Muise, in fact, recently won acquittals on charges of “disturbing the peace” brought by Dearborn against a group of Christians after they were arrested by Dearborn police in 2010 for a similar kind of speech activity.

The Detroit News had reported that officials for a pro-Islamic advocacy organization accused the Christians of not playing by the rules of the Arab fest. The report said members of the Michigan chapter of the Council on American-Islamic Relations accused the Christians of passing out missionary literature at the festival in violation of rules that required them either to pass out the materials from a “paid booth” or “outside of the festival area.”

Whalen said Saieg and his Arabic Christian Perspective organization sued Dearborn and its police chief, Ron Hadda, because after distributing Christian information at the event for several years, he was told police would arrest him if he gave information to anyone at the Arab fest.

Heh!

'Dearbornistan', as it's known locally has been notorious for this kind of discriminatory behavior for some time,aided and abetted by Chief Hadda and Dearborn's dhimmi Mayor Jack O'Reilly.

Of course, in a egregious civil rights violation like this, the Pastor would normally be represented by civil rights attorneys from our Department of Justice if we had a DOJ that was actually concerned about civil rights rather than appeasing Islam.

But we don't.

9th Circuit Panel Rules Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Exactly as I predicted, the three judge 9th Circuit panel ruled in a 2-1 decision that:

(a) Prop 8 violates the US Constitution

(B) Judge Vaughn Walker had no reason to recuse himself from hearing the case, even that he happened to be gay, had a long-time partner with whom he was not married and thus would seem to have had a personal interest in the case and

(C) that the plaintiffs have standing to continue their appeals.

The next step will undoubtedly be an appeal before the full 11-judge 9th Circuit,followed by an appeal to the Supreme Court if the 9th Circuit backs today's ruling by the 3 judge panel.

9th Circuit Panel Rules Prop 8 Unconstitutional

Exactly as I predicted, the three judge 9th Circuit panel ruled in a 2-1 decision that:

(a) Prop 8 violates the US Constitution

(B) Judge Vaughn Walker had no reason to recuse himself from hearing the case, even that he happened to be gay, had a long-time partner with whom he was not married and thus would seem to have had a personal interest in the case and

(C) that the plaintiffs have standing to continue their appeals.

The next step will undoubtedly be an appeal before the full 11-judge 9th Circuit,followed by an appeal to the Supreme Court if the 9th Circuit backs today's ruling by the 3 judge panel.

9th Circuit Ruling On California's Prop 8 Expected Tomorrow

An important 9th Circuit Appeals Court Ruling On Perry v. Brown, which concerns California's Proposition 8 repealing same sex marriage is expected tomorrow.

There are three important points at issue: First, whether former U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from hearing the case, seeing that he happens to be gay, has a long-time partner with whom he was not married and thus would seem to have a personal interest in the case.

Second, whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to appeal Walker's decision striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional when none of the State of California's officials who normally defend the state's laws from legal challenges decided to do so, including then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General and now Governor Jerry Brown Attorney General declined to appeal th ejudge's decision.

And finally, if Walker did not need to recuse himself and the proponents do have the right to appeal, was Judge Walker was correct that Proposition 8 violates Californians' due process and the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution.

My guess is that the 9th Circuit will punt, especially as this is a ruling by the public information office rather than an actual judicial panel. In other words, they will rule that the plaintiffs have standing, but that Judge Walker did not need to recuse himself. And the full 9th Circuit can then go about its business of ruling Prop 8 unconstitutional and handing it off to the Supreme Court, if they decide to hear the case.

This is yet another example of same sex marriage proponents imposing their will via judicial or legislative action rather than by referendums. As a matter of fact, when it comes to direct referendums to legalize same sex marriage, the record is 31-0 against, and in several cases, California, Massachusetts, and Iowa among them, laws permitting same sex marriage were implemented in spite of the very clear wishes of substantial public majorities.

Oddly enough, the California Supreme Court admitted when it originally legalized same sex marriage back in 2008 that the state's domestic partner laws saw to it that partners in a civil union were deprived of no rights that couples in heterosexual marriages enjoyed, but decided to enact what amounted to an ipse dixit( legalese for 'because I said so') decision that went far beyond citing any existing law.

Prop 8's passage as an amendment to California's constitution by a 2 to 1 majority, the well funded and high profile legal challenge, the governor and the attorney's general's failure to abide by their sworn oaths and defend California's constitution and the questionable ruling by Judge Walker followed.

The question of whether Prop 8 violated the Constitutional is an interesting one. It's obviously a severe stretch of the Equal protection clause, easily seen by the fact that proponents of same sex marriage always need to coflate it with the Civil Rights struggle when no such equivalence exists, but that's for judges to decide.

More important is whether the concept of same sex marriage is a bad idea for society as a whole, and whether imposing these kind of institutions on people by legislative and judicial diktat is a good precedent to establish.

Those are the bigger issues no one seems to want to discuss at all.

9th Circuit Ruling On California's Prop 8 Expected Tomorrow

An important 9th Circuit Appeals Court Ruling On Perry v. Brown, which concerns California's Proposition 8 repealing same sex marriage is expected tomorrow.

There are three important points at issue: First, whether former U.S. District Court Judge Vaughn Walker should have recused himself from hearing the case, seeing that he happens to be gay, has a long-time partner with whom he was not married and thus would seem to have a personal interest in the case.

Second, whether the proponents of Proposition 8 have standing to appeal Walker's decision striking down Proposition 8 as unconstitutional when none of the State of California's officials who normally defend the state's laws from legal challenges decided to do so, including then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger and then-Attorney General and now Governor Jerry Brown Attorney General declined to appeal th ejudge's decision.

And finally, if Walker did not need to recuse himself and the proponents do have the right to appeal, was Judge Walker was correct that Proposition 8 violates Californians' due process and the equal protection clause in the U.S. Constitution.

My guess is that the 9th Circuit will punt, especially as this is a ruling by the public information office rather than an actual judicial panel. In other words, they will rule that the plaintiffs have standing, but that Judge Walker did not need to recuse himself. And the full 9th Circuit can then go about its business of ruling Prop 8 unconstitutional and handing it off to the Supreme Court, if they decide to hear the case.

This is yet another example of same sex marriage proponents imposing their will via judicial or legislative action rather than by referendums. As a matter of fact, when it comes to direct referendums to legalize same sex marriage, the record is 31-0 against, and in several cases, California, Massachusetts, and Iowa among them, laws permitting same sex marriage were implemented in spite of the very clear wishes of substantial public majorities.

Oddly enough, the California Supreme Court admitted when it originally legalized same sex marriage back in 2008 that the state's domestic partner laws saw to it that partners in a civil union were deprived of no rights that couples in heterosexual marriages enjoyed, but decided to enact what amounted to an ipse dixit( legalese for 'because I said so') decision that went far beyond citing any existing law.

Prop 8's passage as an amendment to California's constitution by a 2 to 1 majority, the well funded and high profile legal challenge, the governor and the attorney's general's failure to abide by their sworn oaths and defend California's constitution and the questionable ruling by Judge Walker followed.

The question of whether Prop 8 violated the Constitutional is an interesting one. It's obviously a severe stretch of the Equal protection clause, easily seen by the fact that proponents of same sex marriage always need to coflate it with the Civil Rights struggle when no such equivalence exists, but that's for judges to decide.

More important is whether the concept of same sex marriage is a bad idea for society as a whole, and whether imposing these kind of institutions on people by legislative and judicial diktat is a good precedent to establish.

Those are the bigger issues no one seems to want to discuss at all.

California Federal Judge Rules Assault On Jewish Students By Muslims Is 'Protected Speech'

No, I'm not kidding.

Over at UC Berkeley, Muslim students and were holding an anti-Israel “Apartheid Week” demonstration sanctioned by the university and conducted by the Muslim Student Association, Students for Justice in Palestine and their assorted leftist allies on campus in 2010.

For anyone who's never been to these little gatherings, they feature anti-Semitic,inflammatory rhetoric as the main course along with street theater like trampling and burning Israeli flags ( which contain a religious symbol, by the way)and simulated 'checkpoints' blocking off essential parts of the campus and forcing students to run a gauntlet of violent and intimidating students to get by.

At the 2010 protest at Berkeley, 20-year-old Jessica Felber and a few other Jewish students in the pro-Israel Tikva group had the courage to confront this mob by mounting a small pro-Israel demonstration in response.

The anti-Israel crowd responded by issuing violent threats against the Jews, culminating in leader of the Students for Justice in Palestine, Husam Zakharia, assaulting Ms. Felber and ramming her from behind with a loaded shopping cart.Ironically, Felber was carrying a sign that read “Israel Wants Peace” when she was assaulted.

Zakaria was later arrested but the local district attorney apparently declined to prosecute him.

In an interview, Felber said Zakharia has been involved with numerous violent incidents involving Jews:

According to her, physical intimidation has frequently been employed as a tool by SJP to silence students opposing their anti-Zionist activities on campus. “SJP students have been terrorizing us for three years with intimidation, accusations and threats. This incident is simply the culmination of it all and we are not going to tolerate it anymore.”

SJP’s tactics backfired on at least one occasion when, in November 2008, the group attempted to disrupt a concert organized by the Zionist Freedom Alliance during “Israel Liberation Week” on the UC Berkeley campus. After striking a ZFA activist in the head, Zakharia found himself beaten to the ground. Following the incident, Zakharia and two fellow SJP members, along with two Zionist activists, were cited for battery but no charges were officially filed.

Felber then decided to file a civil rights action against the University of California at Berkeley, the Regents of the University of California and their ranking officials. The complaint stated that Defendants were fully aware that Zakharia, the SJP and similar student groups had been involved in other similar incidents on campus against Jewish and other students, but took no reasonable steps to protect Ms. Felber and others.

The complaint charged that the assault was the result of the university having essentially sponsored and encouraged similar incitements by the SJP and the MSA and failing to discipline them for past incidents.

It documented how the university had ignored numerous complaints from students about the poisonous climate on campus and accused the university of tolerating 'the growing cancer of a dangerous anti-Semitic climate on its campuses' thus violating the civil rights of Ms. Felber and other students to enjoy a peaceful campus environ.

Now, if Ms.Felber had been black and was injured by, say, a member of the Aryan Brotherhood or White Aryan Nation during a campus demonstration, you know without even guessing that the Obama Department of Justice would be in this up to their necks and providing DOJ lawyers for her by the busload. Instead, she was forced to hire private counsel.

The case went to trial in Federal Court in Oakland and was heard by U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, an Obama appointee.

He dismissed the case out of hand.

He claimed that the harassment constituted 'protected political speech':

Seeborg said the university did not have any obligation to intervene in any dispute where a private individual on campus was allegedly interfering with another’s constitutional rights. He instead appeared to indicate that the incident was an outcome of Felber’s counter protest.

“The incident in which Felber was assaulted with a shopping cart, for example, did not occur in the context of her educational pursuit,” Seeborg wrote. "Rather, that event occurred when she, as one person attempting to exercise free speech rights in a public forum, was allegedly attacked by another person who likewise was participating in a public protest in a public forum."

Now, I always thought that freedom of speech involved talking, not ramming someone from behind with a shopping cart. But apparently the rules are different when it comes to Muslims...and Jews, for that matter.

If attacking someone physically is now protected speech, would that also apply if a bunch of young Jewish men grabbed a few baseball bats and exercised their freedom of speech in breaking up what amounted to a racist assault on their people and their right to self-determination?

Well, your 'Honor'?

I smell the stench of something very old and pungent here...

(hat tip, Louie Louie)

California Federal Judge Rules Assault On Jewish Students By Muslims Is 'Protected Speech'

No, I'm not kidding.

Over at UC Berkeley, Muslim students and were holding an anti-Israel “Apartheid Week” demonstration sanctioned by the university and conducted by the Muslim Student Association, Students for Justice in Palestine and their assorted leftist allies on campus in 2010.

For anyone who's never been to these little gatherings, they feature anti-Semitic,inflammatory rhetoric as the main course along with street theater like trampling and burning Israeli flags ( which contain a religious symbol, by the way)and simulated 'checkpoints' blocking off essential parts of the campus and forcing students to run a gauntlet of violent and intimidating students to get by.

At the 2010 protest at Berkeley, 20-year-old Jessica Felber and a few other Jewish students in the pro-Israel Tikva group had the courage to confront this mob by mounting a small pro-Israel demonstration in response.

The anti-Israel crowd responded by issuing violent threats against the Jews, culminating in leader of the Students for Justice in Palestine, Husam Zakharia, assaulting Ms. Felber and ramming her from behind with a loaded shopping cart.Ironically, Felber was carrying a sign that read “Israel Wants Peace” when she was assaulted.

Zakaria was later arrested but the local district attorney apparently declined to prosecute him.

In an interview, Felber said Zakharia has been involved with numerous violent incidents involving Jews:

According to her, physical intimidation has frequently been employed as a tool by SJP to silence students opposing their anti-Zionist activities on campus. “SJP students have been terrorizing us for three years with intimidation, accusations and threats. This incident is simply the culmination of it all and we are not going to tolerate it anymore.”

SJP’s tactics backfired on at least one occasion when, in November 2008, the group attempted to disrupt a concert organized by the Zionist Freedom Alliance during “Israel Liberation Week” on the UC Berkeley campus. After striking a ZFA activist in the head, Zakharia found himself beaten to the ground. Following the incident, Zakharia and two fellow SJP members, along with two Zionist activists, were cited for battery but no charges were officially filed.

Felber then decided to file a civil rights action against the University of California at Berkeley, the Regents of the University of California and their ranking officials. The complaint stated that Defendants were fully aware that Zakharia, the SJP and similar student groups had been involved in other similar incidents on campus against Jewish and other students, but took no reasonable steps to protect Ms. Felber and others.

The complaint charged that the assault was the result of the university having essentially sponsored and encouraged similar incitements by the SJP and the MSA and failing to discipline them for past incidents.

It documented how the university had ignored numerous complaints from students about the poisonous climate on campus and accused the university of tolerating 'the growing cancer of a dangerous anti-Semitic climate on its campuses' thus violating the civil rights of Ms. Felber and other students to enjoy a peaceful campus environ.

Now, if Ms.Felber had been black and was injured by, say, a member of the Aryan Brotherhood or White Aryan Nation during a campus demonstration, you know without even guessing that the Obama Department of Justice would be in this up to their necks and providing DOJ lawyers for her by the busload. Instead, she was forced to hire private counsel.

The case went to trial in Federal Court in Oakland and was heard by U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg, an Obama appointee.

He dismissed the case out of hand.

He claimed that the harassment constituted 'protected political speech':

Seeborg said the university did not have any obligation to intervene in any dispute where a private individual on campus was allegedly interfering with another’s constitutional rights. He instead appeared to indicate that the incident was an outcome of Felber’s counter protest.

“The incident in which Felber was assaulted with a shopping cart, for example, did not occur in the context of her educational pursuit,” Seeborg wrote. "Rather, that event occurred when she, as one person attempting to exercise free speech rights in a public forum, was allegedly attacked by another person who likewise was participating in a public protest in a public forum."

Now, I always thought that freedom of speech involved talking, not ramming someone from behind with a shopping cart. But apparently the rules are different when it comes to Muslims...and Jews, for that matter.

If attacking someone physically is now protected speech, would that also apply if a bunch of young Jewish men grabbed a few baseball bats and exercised their freedom of speech in breaking up what amounted to a racist assault on their people and their right to self-determination?

Well, your 'Honor'?

I smell the stench of something very old and pungent here...

(hat tip, Louie Louie)

Israel AG Won't Prosecute Arab MK, Leftists Who Took Part In Mami Marmara Flotilla

Israel's Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein announced today that the Government of Israel will not seek to prosecute MK Hanin Zouabi (Balad) and other leftists who took part in the Gaza flotilla in 2010.

Zouabi and others were aboard the Mami Mamara in 2010 along IHH members who prepared an ambush and attacked the IDF Naval Commandos who boarded the ship after it attempted to break the Gaza blockade and refused to sail to the Israeli port of Ashdod to have its cargo checked.

Three of the commandos were invalided out of the service because of injuries they suffered during the attack.

This is the equivalent of our own government's refusal to prosecute Code Pink after they cheerfully gave over $600,000 to the people who were shooting at our troops in Fallujah.

There is no real rationale for this kind of decision whatsoever, unless the Israeli government is afraid of being attacked by the usual suspects for prosecuting a treasonous Arab politician who unfortunately has Israeli citizenship.

It's simply a green light for even more egregious acts.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Israel AG Won't Prosecute Arab MK, Leftists Who Took Part In Mami Marmara Flotilla

Israel's Attorney General Yehuda Weinstein announced today that the Government of Israel will not seek to prosecute MK Hanin Zouabi (Balad) and other leftists who took part in the Gaza flotilla in 2010.

Zouabi and others were aboard the Mami Mamara in 2010 along IHH members who prepared an ambush and attacked the IDF Naval Commandos who boarded the ship after it attempted to break the Gaza blockade and refused to sail to the Israeli port of Ashdod to have its cargo checked.

Three of the commandos were invalided out of the service because of injuries they suffered during the attack.

This is the equivalent of our own government's refusal to prosecute Code Pink after they cheerfully gave over $600,000 to the people who were shooting at our troops in Fallujah.

There is no real rationale for this kind of decision whatsoever, unless the Israeli government is afraid of being attacked by the usual suspects for prosecuting a treasonous Arab politician who unfortunately has Israeli citizenship.

It's simply a green light for even more egregious acts.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Federal Judge Blocks S. Carolina's Illegal Imigration Law

U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel ruled in favor today on granting an injunction sought by the Department of Justice to block South Carolina's new laws on illegal immigration, which were set to go into effect January 1t 2012.

The new law requires law enforcement to check the status of anyone they detain or stop in th ecourse of regular police business and have reasonable cause to suspect is in the country illegally.

Gergel also denied the state's request that he suspend all court hearings on the case until the U.S.Supreme Court rules on the Justice Department's suit against Arizona's similar law. That decision is expected in six months or less.

Judge Gergel is an Obama appointee, supported by RINO Lindsay Graham.

Of course.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Federal Judge Blocks S. Carolina's Illegal Imigration Law

U.S. District Judge Richard Gergel ruled in favor today on granting an injunction sought by the Department of Justice to block South Carolina's new laws on illegal immigration, which were set to go into effect January 1t 2012.

The new law requires law enforcement to check the status of anyone they detain or stop in th ecourse of regular police business and have reasonable cause to suspect is in the country illegally.

Gergel also denied the state's request that he suspend all court hearings on the case until the U.S.Supreme Court rules on the Justice Department's suit against Arizona's similar law. That decision is expected in six months or less.

Judge Gergel is an Obama appointee, supported by RINO Lindsay Graham.

Of course.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Federal Court Ruling: Iran and Hezbollah Helped Al-Qaeda in 9/11 Attacks

In a long awaited decision, Federal Judge George Daniels in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York ruled that Iran and its Lebanese terrorist proxy Hezbollah, had joint responsibility with al-Qa’eda for the 9/11 attacks.

The ruling in the cases of Havlish, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., and Bingham, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al. was in response to lawsuits filed by families of 9/11 victims.

As I mentioned previously, this is by no means new or even previously unknown material. The 9/11 Commission stated in its report that there was "strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of Al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers." There's more than just 'strong evidence' that Iran allowed members of al-Qaeda into Iran after we invaded their stronghold in Afghanistan. That's exactly how so many of them got to Iraq so easily via Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran.

On page 240 of the Commission’s final report, it mentions a “senior Hezbollah operative” accompanied some of the future 9/11 hijackers on their final airline flights into and out of Afghanistan, Iran, and Lebanon.

It's now known beyond question that the “senior Hezbollah operative” was our old friend Imad Mugniyeh. You'll remember that he was not only a member of al-Qaeda but a founding member of Hezbollah and a former member of Yasser Arafat's Force 17. He was the commander of the operation that killed 247 marines in Beirut, the man who tortured to death Marine Colonel William Buckley,videotaped the proceedings and sent it to the White House, the liaison man in the Karina A arms shipment, which involved Iranian weapons sent to the PLO.

Mugniyah was the natural liaison man for the 9/11 hijackers as well,because he was one of the few people trusted by by all parties involved...Hezbollah, Iran and al- Qaeda.

The 9/11 commission urged further investigation at the time, but neither the Bush Administration or the Obama Administration ever saw fit to follow up.

As evidence given in the trials show, in addition to directing Mughniyah’s extensive involvement in recruiting, guiding, and training the hijackers, Iran provided vital material support to those hijackers by ordering its border and passport officials not to stamp their passports when they crossed Iranian territory. That meant they could enter the U.S. with clean passports, no questions asked.

This was probably what Saddam Hussein was talking about when he mentioned that he thought a strike on the U.S. was imminent, but that 'no ties to Iraq will be seen.' Given that the Iraqis had already gotten away with involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing ( and likely the Oklahoma City bombing), Saddam wasn't expecting anyone to draw a line to Iraq this time, especially since he may have known of or suspected Iran's involvement in the coming carnage.

Iranian assistance to al-Qaeda didn't stop with the 9/11 attacks, as you already know if you read this site. After Tora Bora, al-Qaeda's top leadership and a number of fighters were able to flee to safety in Iran aided and abetted by the regime, including Ayman Zawahiri and Osama bin-Laden. Many of the fighters ended up in Iraq and Afghanistan, while bin-Laden and Zawahri returned to Pakistan.

These and other details were revealed by declassified material that came out in the trial and 25 hours of sworn testimony (filed under seal) from three former Iranian intelligence officers, who described the direct participation of top Iranian government officials like current Iranian defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi as well as Imad Mughniyah's role.

The next step, since this is a civil trial, will likely be to obtain financial judgments, which may ultimately involve seeking reciprocation in European courts that recognize US judgments.

Of course, the real question to be answered is one I posed before, one some of us have been asking for a long time - exactly why did we go after Saddam Hussein and ignore the real threat in Iran? Especially since our government was made aware of Iran's complicity?

From the Iranian standpoint, they have to be astounded as well. They've taken over an American embassy with impunity, killed our soldiers, armed, trained and abetted our enemies and provided essential support for the worst terrorist strike on America's soil in our history.And these people are now actively seeking nuclear weapons via a rogue program.

Any of these actions are normally grounds for war. Yet the United States continues to attempt to 'engage' with the Iranians.

If I were them, I would assume that America was so petrified of Iran, so ineffectual and decadent that no accommodation with America was necessary and no attack or insult too insufferable to offer. I would hold America and its leaders beneath contempt.

That is likely how they regard us, and I certainly can see why.It will unfortunately make a violent confrontation at some point that much more likely.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Federal Court Ruling: Iran and Hezbollah Helped Al-Qaeda in 9/11 Attacks

In a long awaited decision, Federal Judge George Daniels in the U.S. District Court of the Southern District of New York ruled that Iran and its Lebanese terrorist proxy Hezbollah, had joint responsibility with al-Qa’eda for the 9/11 attacks.

The ruling in the cases of Havlish, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al., and Bingham, et al. v. Islamic Republic of Iran, et al. was in response to lawsuits filed by families of 9/11 victims.

As I mentioned previously, this is by no means new or even previously unknown material. The 9/11 Commission stated in its report that there was "strong evidence that Iran facilitated the transit of Al Qaeda members into and out of Afghanistan before 9/11, and that some of these were future 9/11 hijackers." There's more than just 'strong evidence' that Iran allowed members of al-Qaeda into Iran after we invaded their stronghold in Afghanistan. That's exactly how so many of them got to Iraq so easily via Saudi Arabia, Syria and Iran.

On page 240 of the Commission’s final report, it mentions a “senior Hezbollah operative” accompanied some of the future 9/11 hijackers on their final airline flights into and out of Afghanistan, Iran, and Lebanon.

It's now known beyond question that the “senior Hezbollah operative” was our old friend Imad Mugniyeh. You'll remember that he was not only a member of al-Qaeda but a founding member of Hezbollah and a former member of Yasser Arafat's Force 17. He was the commander of the operation that killed 247 marines in Beirut, the man who tortured to death Marine Colonel William Buckley,videotaped the proceedings and sent it to the White House, the liaison man in the Karina A arms shipment, which involved Iranian weapons sent to the PLO.

Mugniyah was the natural liaison man for the 9/11 hijackers as well,because he was one of the few people trusted by by all parties involved...Hezbollah, Iran and al- Qaeda.

The 9/11 commission urged further investigation at the time, but neither the Bush Administration or the Obama Administration ever saw fit to follow up.

As evidence given in the trials show, in addition to directing Mughniyah’s extensive involvement in recruiting, guiding, and training the hijackers, Iran provided vital material support to those hijackers by ordering its border and passport officials not to stamp their passports when they crossed Iranian territory. That meant they could enter the U.S. with clean passports, no questions asked.

This was probably what Saddam Hussein was talking about when he mentioned that he thought a strike on the U.S. was imminent, but that 'no ties to Iraq will be seen.' Given that the Iraqis had already gotten away with involvement in the first World Trade Center bombing ( and likely the Oklahoma City bombing), Saddam wasn't expecting anyone to draw a line to Iraq this time, especially since he may have known of or suspected Iran's involvement in the coming carnage.

Iranian assistance to al-Qaeda didn't stop with the 9/11 attacks, as you already know if you read this site. After Tora Bora, al-Qaeda's top leadership and a number of fighters were able to flee to safety in Iran aided and abetted by the regime, including Ayman Zawahiri and Osama bin-Laden. Many of the fighters ended up in Iraq and Afghanistan, while bin-Laden and Zawahri returned to Pakistan.

These and other details were revealed by declassified material that came out in the trial and 25 hours of sworn testimony (filed under seal) from three former Iranian intelligence officers, who described the direct participation of top Iranian government officials like current Iranian defense Minister Ahmad Vahidi as well as Imad Mughniyah's role.

The next step, since this is a civil trial, will likely be to obtain financial judgments, which may ultimately involve seeking reciprocation in European courts that recognize US judgments.

Of course, the real question to be answered is one I posed before, one some of us have been asking for a long time - exactly why did we go after Saddam Hussein and ignore the real threat in Iran? Especially since our government was made aware of Iran's complicity?

From the Iranian standpoint, they have to be astounded as well. They've taken over an American embassy with impunity, killed our soldiers, armed, trained and abetted our enemies and provided essential support for the worst terrorist strike on America's soil in our history.And these people are now actively seeking nuclear weapons via a rogue program.

Any of these actions are normally grounds for war. Yet the United States continues to attempt to 'engage' with the Iranians.

If I were them, I would assume that America was so petrified of Iran, so ineffectual and decadent that no accommodation with America was necessary and no attack or insult too insufferable to offer. I would hold America and its leaders beneath contempt.

That is likely how they regard us, and I certainly can see why.It will unfortunately make a violent confrontation at some point that much more likely.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Holy Land Foundation Convictions Upheld On Appeal

There are some very sad jihadis in Texas today...

The convictions in the Holy Land Foundation trial have been upheld by the Fifth Circuit and the appeals denied:

Ghassan Elashi, of Richardson, a Holy Land Foundation founder, received 65 years for support of Hamas, money laundering and tax fraud. Shukri Abu Baker, of Garland, who was Holy Land's CEO, received 65 years for support of Hamas, money laundering and tax fraud. Mufid Abdulqader, of Richardson, was a top volunteer fundraiser and sang about Hamas in a Palestinian band that played at fundraising rallies, received 20 years for conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization; conspiracy to provide funds, goods and services to a specially designated terrorist; and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Abdulrahman Odeh, who started Holy Land's office in New Jersey, received 15 years in prison for conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization; conspiracy to provide funds, goods and services to a specially designated terrorist; and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Mohammad El-Mezain, an imam who ran Holy Land's office in California, received 15 years in prison for providing support to Hamas.

The HLF, once the largest Muslim charity in the United States, had been under investigation for years before it was shut down by the Bush administration months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In their appeals, defense attorneys argued that the government's use of anonymous Israeli witnesses and other issues resulted in an unfair outcome for their clients, two of whom are serving 65-year sentences.

In today's opinion, Fifth Circuit Judge Carolyn Dineen King, writing on behalf of colleagues Emilio M. Garza and James E. Graves, Jr., noted:

"While no trial is perfect, this one included, we conclude from our review of the record, briefs, and oral argument, that the defendants were fairly convicted. For the reasons explained below, therefore, we affirm the district court's judgments of conviction of the individual defendants. We dismiss the appeal of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development."

Those 'anonymous Israeli witnesses' were Shin Bet and other security personnel whose personal safety and the secrecy involved in other ongoing investigations might have been compromised had they been identified.

These cockroaches helped fund the murder of countless civilians, including a number of American citizens. However, I agree that they didn't merit these kind of sentences.

A rope and a pigskin burial would have been more in line with what they merited.

It should be noted that this was the trial in which CAIR,ISNA and a number of other organizations people associated with these Muslim Brotherhood fronts were named as unindicted conspirators. This was supposed to be only the first round of trials associated with the HLF, and a second round of trials was scheduled to go after the 'unindicted co-conspirators'.

That trial would have been a slam dunk, because the Islamist group's attorneys appealed to have their names removed and not only lost the appeal but ended up causing government evidence to be unsealed that connected them even more directly with the Hamas fundraising and material support for a terrorist group.However, the Obama Department of Justice filed Disinclination to Prosecute briefs in these cases, letting the Islamists walk free. So today's verdict is just a partial victory.

It isn't just Fast and Furious Eric Holder is covering up for.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Holy Land Foundation Convictions Upheld On Appeal

There are some very sad jihadis in Texas today...

The convictions in the Holy Land Foundation trial have been upheld by the Fifth Circuit and the appeals denied:

Ghassan Elashi, of Richardson, a Holy Land Foundation founder, received 65 years for support of Hamas, money laundering and tax fraud. Shukri Abu Baker, of Garland, who was Holy Land's CEO, received 65 years for support of Hamas, money laundering and tax fraud. Mufid Abdulqader, of Richardson, was a top volunteer fundraiser and sang about Hamas in a Palestinian band that played at fundraising rallies, received 20 years for conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization; conspiracy to provide funds, goods and services to a specially designated terrorist; and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Abdulrahman Odeh, who started Holy Land's office in New Jersey, received 15 years in prison for conspiracy to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization; conspiracy to provide funds, goods and services to a specially designated terrorist; and conspiracy to commit money laundering. Mohammad El-Mezain, an imam who ran Holy Land's office in California, received 15 years in prison for providing support to Hamas.

The HLF, once the largest Muslim charity in the United States, had been under investigation for years before it was shut down by the Bush administration months after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

In their appeals, defense attorneys argued that the government's use of anonymous Israeli witnesses and other issues resulted in an unfair outcome for their clients, two of whom are serving 65-year sentences.

In today's opinion, Fifth Circuit Judge Carolyn Dineen King, writing on behalf of colleagues Emilio M. Garza and James E. Graves, Jr., noted:

"While no trial is perfect, this one included, we conclude from our review of the record, briefs, and oral argument, that the defendants were fairly convicted. For the reasons explained below, therefore, we affirm the district court's judgments of conviction of the individual defendants. We dismiss the appeal of the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development."

Those 'anonymous Israeli witnesses' were Shin Bet and other security personnel whose personal safety and the secrecy involved in other ongoing investigations might have been compromised had they been identified.

These cockroaches helped fund the murder of countless civilians, including a number of American citizens. However, I agree that they didn't merit these kind of sentences.

A rope and a pigskin burial would have been more in line with what they merited.

It should be noted that this was the trial in which CAIR,ISNA and a number of other organizations people associated with these Muslim Brotherhood fronts were named as unindicted conspirators. This was supposed to be only the first round of trials associated with the HLF, and a second round of trials was scheduled to go after the 'unindicted co-conspirators'.

That trial would have been a slam dunk, because the Islamist group's attorneys appealed to have their names removed and not only lost the appeal but ended up causing government evidence to be unsealed that connected them even more directly with the Hamas fundraising and material support for a terrorist group.However, the Obama Department of Justice filed Disinclination to Prosecute briefs in these cases, letting the Islamists walk free. So today's verdict is just a partial victory.

It isn't just Fast and Furious Eric Holder is covering up for.

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Israeli Village Saved From Death

Migron is a small Israeli community situated in the hill country about five miles north-east of Jerusalem. It was established back in 2002 as small village within easy commuting distance from Jerusalem, and has a population of about 500 people. Some would refer to the small community as an 'outpost'.

Shortly after Migron’s construction, Migron became a target of Peace Now, who started a legal campaign on behalf of several 'Palestinian' Arabs who claimed that their families owned the land upon which Migron sits. According to the Arabs, the land had been given to them by King Hussein of Jordan.

The residents of Migron claimed that they had legally purchased the land, and showed paperwork recording the sale and giving them legal title. The resident's attorneys made the argument all of Judea and Samaria were illegally occupied by Jordan between 1948 to 1967, and that therefore King Hussein had no right to 'give' land to anyone.

Israel's Supreme Court chose to ignore both the history of the area and the villager's legal paperwork showing ownership and ruled in favor of the Arabs. The Court ordered the army to remove the Israeli inhabitants and destroy all structures.

After several appeals which saw three homes demolished,a final 'death sentence' was pronounced on Migron on August 2, 2011, with the court ruling that Migron must be demolished and the inhabitants removed by March 31, 2012.

What happened next is poetic justice.

The Arabs and their supporters in Peace Now got greedy and filed a lawsuit in the Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court, demanding that the Israeli government compensate them for the years during which Migron existed on what they had said was their land.

The Magistrate’s Court, just as a matter of routine, asked that the Arab plaintiffs provide their proof of ownership to the court.

Following that,the Arabs, who had managed to skate through Israel's Supreme Court without being asked this simple question suddenly withdrew their lawsuit.

Because the Arab plaintiffs had no proof of ownership and refused to provide any explanation of why they had withdrawn their suit, the Magistrate’s Court stopped the demolition of Migron's homes and the eviction of the families that live there.

This was fairly major news in Israel and a huge embarrassment for the Supreme Court, especially at a time when the Israeli government is crafting new legislation on new procedures in how Supreme Court justice are selected . The only explanation the Court gave was that “The High Court does not debate evidence.”

The entire fiasco sheds a great deal of light on the necessity of the pending legislation curbing the foreign funding of Israel's Left wing Organizations.

Peace Now is funded almost entirely by the EU and grants from places like the Tides Foundation and the New Israel Fund in America.The UK alone, for example, gave Peace Now £310,000 (about $500,000) in the period of 2008-11.

What they've done with the money, among other things, is to challenge the existence of any community in Israel they oppose as a 'settlement' in court with the idea of harassing Israelis who live in Judea and Samaria and flooding Israeli courts with bogus lawsuits no matter how weak the evidence is, all designed to make it more difficult for the Israeli government to build housing and infrastructure.

In the recent past they tried exactly the same strategy they used in Migron - better known as lawfare - in unsuccessful attempts to have the Israeli communities of of Kiryat Netafim and the Jerusalem suburbs of Ma'aleh Adumim and Har Homa destroyed and the land turned over to Israel's enemies. Needless to say, they have never done anything to challenge the widespread illegal 'Palestinian' construction in Judea and Samaria or in East Jerusalem. In fact they've even attempted to intervene when the City of Jerusalem has attempted to demolish unsafe and illegal structures built by Arabs without permits or any compliance with building and safety codes that were actually hazards to adjacent structures.

Given the state of Middle East peace, one could be forgiven for considering Peace Now's activities as borderline treason.

For now, their attempt to throw their fellow Jews out of their homes in Migron has been foiled, appropriately, by their own greed and zeal to accomplish it at all costs. Hopefully, when Israel limits foreign funding for groups like Peace Now their contemptible efforts to wage lawfare against their own country will be curtailed.

Meanwhile, their fellow citizens can do what Israelis do best,build. Let a thousand bulldozers bloom!

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!

Israeli Village Saved From Death

Migron is a small Israeli community situated in the hill country about five miles north-east of Jerusalem. It was established back in 2002 as small village within easy commuting distance from Jerusalem, and has a population of about 500 people. Some would refer to the small community as an 'outpost'.

Shortly after Migron’s construction, Migron became a target of Peace Now, who started a legal campaign on behalf of several 'Palestinian' Arabs who claimed that their families owned the land upon which Migron sits. According to the Arabs, the land had been given to them by King Hussein of Jordan.

The residents of Migron claimed that they had legally purchased the land, and showed paperwork recording the sale and giving them legal title. The resident's attorneys made the argument all of Judea and Samaria were illegally occupied by Jordan between 1948 to 1967, and that therefore King Hussein had no right to 'give' land to anyone.

Israel's Supreme Court chose to ignore both the history of the area and the villager's legal paperwork showing ownership and ruled in favor of the Arabs. The Court ordered the army to remove the Israeli inhabitants and destroy all structures.

After several appeals which saw three homes demolished,a final 'death sentence' was pronounced on Migron on August 2, 2011, with the court ruling that Migron must be demolished and the inhabitants removed by March 31, 2012.

What happened next is poetic justice.

The Arabs and their supporters in Peace Now got greedy and filed a lawsuit in the Jerusalem Magistrate’s Court, demanding that the Israeli government compensate them for the years during which Migron existed on what they had said was their land.

The Magistrate’s Court, just as a matter of routine, asked that the Arab plaintiffs provide their proof of ownership to the court.

Following that,the Arabs, who had managed to skate through Israel's Supreme Court without being asked this simple question suddenly withdrew their lawsuit.

Because the Arab plaintiffs had no proof of ownership and refused to provide any explanation of why they had withdrawn their suit, the Magistrate’s Court stopped the demolition of Migron's homes and the eviction of the families that live there.

This was fairly major news in Israel and a huge embarrassment for the Supreme Court, especially at a time when the Israeli government is crafting new legislation on new procedures in how Supreme Court justice are selected . The only explanation the Court gave was that “The High Court does not debate evidence.”

The entire fiasco sheds a great deal of light on the necessity of the pending legislation curbing the foreign funding of Israel's Left wing Organizations.

Peace Now is funded almost entirely by the EU and grants from places like the Tides Foundation and the New Israel Fund in America.The UK alone, for example, gave Peace Now £310,000 (about $500,000) in the period of 2008-11.

What they've done with the money, among other things, is to challenge the existence of any community in Israel they oppose as a 'settlement' in court with the idea of harassing Israelis who live in Judea and Samaria and flooding Israeli courts with bogus lawsuits no matter how weak the evidence is, all designed to make it more difficult for the Israeli government to build housing and infrastructure.

In the recent past they tried exactly the same strategy they used in Migron - better known as lawfare - in unsuccessful attempts to have the Israeli communities of of Kiryat Netafim and the Jerusalem suburbs of Ma'aleh Adumim and Har Homa destroyed and the land turned over to Israel's enemies. Needless to say, they have never done anything to challenge the widespread illegal 'Palestinian' construction in Judea and Samaria or in East Jerusalem. In fact they've even attempted to intervene when the City of Jerusalem has attempted to demolish unsafe and illegal structures built by Arabs without permits or any compliance with building and safety codes that were actually hazards to adjacent structures.

Given the state of Middle East peace, one could be forgiven for considering Peace Now's activities as borderline treason.

For now, their attempt to throw their fellow Jews out of their homes in Migron has been foiled, appropriately, by their own greed and zeal to accomplish it at all costs. Hopefully, when Israel limits foreign funding for groups like Peace Now their contemptible efforts to wage lawfare against their own country will be curtailed.

Meanwhile, their fellow citizens can do what Israelis do best,build. Let a thousand bulldozers bloom!

please donate...it helps me write more gooder!