Yet they forget some of the most important words in the Declaration of Independence that framed our national mission:

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter 

"We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

With those words in mind, let's take a quick look at key progressive policies, that actually embody Marxist, Socialist, Communist, authoritarian, atheist and anarchist ideas. These are policies that have consistently failed wherever they have been tried. Moreover, the "progressive" rulers of the Soviet Union and China killed nearly 100 million of their own people over the past century in the name of such ideology.

And then, let's take a look at reality.

On "Life" they say: Defunding the police is necessary to protect minority communities from racist policemen. In reality, defunding the police is pure racism, because minorities suffer the most when gangs and drug lords take over.

They say: "Medicare for all" benefits everyone. In reality, Medicare is a grossly underfunded entitlement program. Bringing in more beneficiaries will reduce access to service for everyone and will hasten the bankruptcy of the entire program.

They say: The economy must be shut down until a coronavirus vaccine is FDA approved. Joe Biden said, "Let me be clear, I trust vaccines. I trust scientists. But I don't trust Donald Trump, and at this moment, the American people can't either." Kamala Harris said, "I would not trust Donald Trump [if a vaccine was approved] and it would have to be a credible source of information that talks about the efficacy and the reliability of whatever he's talking about. I will not take his word for it."

In reality, the FDA would not approve a vaccine that is not safe. Moreover, no major pharmaceutical company would be willing to rush an unsafe product to market.

On "Liberty" they say that he majority of the US population is "systemically racist" and believe in "white privilege." In reality, though not perfect, America is one of the least racist societies in the world.

They say: The United States can be dramatically improved with progressive/socialist identity politics and "social justice." In reality, America is built on the equality of opportunity. Social justice is simply government-imposed equality of misery and poverty for all.

They say: Political correctness protects everyone from offensive language. In reality, political correctness is a violation of freedom of speech, as enshrined in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. It is an effort to control the expressions of free thought, based on the theory that everyone has a non-existent right not to be offended.

On the "pursuit of happiness" they say: White policemen are always guilty, whether or not they injure a black suspect during an arrest. In reality, everyone is innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, including both the suspect and the arresting officer, regardless of the color of their skin.

They say: Huge tax increases on the rich are good for society and satisfy the need for "social justice." In reality, huge private-sector tax increases take resources from the productive private sector, thereby reducing both private innovation and job growth.

They say: Elementary-school reopenings must be delayed due to COVID-19. In reality, the risk of infection, hospitalization and death for young students is similar to that of the flu, and kids must maintain their educational pace and be allowed to benefit from socialization. There is some extra risk to the teachers, particularly if elderly, but the extra risk is not high enough to prohibit classroom learning throughout the educational system.

They say: Climate change is an existential threat to all life on our planet, largely due to our indiscriminate use of fossil fuels.

In reality, no one knows and no one can dictate nature's behavior. Fossil fuel consumption in the United States is a relatively modest contributing factor (the US produces only 15% of the world's emissions of CO2), which is moderated by the increasing efficiency of the system. Technology continues to develop newer and better ways to harness energy and use it more efficiently so that it produces less pollution, and American emissions have been dropping. Moreover, the demand for climate and energy control is simply an excuse for canceling the industries (like coal and fracking) that the progressives don't like. It's a way to build up the government's power.

Subscribe to Israel Hayom's daily newsletter and never miss our top stories!

In reality, the so-called "progressives" are nothing but "regressives," taking us backward instead of forward. It is they who present the number one existential threat to our land of opportunity. Our country is based on equal protection under the law, as codified under the Constitution and Bill of Rights. These regressives want to take us back in time when immoral despots ruled. No way! Let's move forward, not backward.

 Reprinted with permission from JNS.org

The post Progressives are regressive appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

For now, listening to key experts, some speculate that scientists at China's Wuhan Institute of Virology lost control of this highly infectious virus last October or November, by accident. Others disagree. What we do know is that last December, the virus spread among the 11 million people of the city of Wuhan, which is part of Hubei Province and its 60 million people.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

In January, the Chinese government, run by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), restricted travel in and out of Hubei domestically, but allowed international travel to Europe and the United States.

The CCP has not provided any explanation regarding this or any of the other vital questions that President Trump and the US Centers for Disease Control have asked for repeatedly since early in the outbreak of the pandemic. Therefore President Trump ordered a US investigation, which will take time.

In the meantime, here is my assessment of how the COVID-19 crisis will impact the national security of the United States:

First, the US government will increasingly blame the leadership of the CCP for the COVID-19 pandemic. Second, the CCP will increasingly blame the United States for the pandemic. Third, relations between the two countries are guaranteed to deteriorate.

Next, both countries will seek to avoid an armed conflict, as such confrontations can escalate rapidly. Both countries benefit from trade, and will seek to maintain the beneficial aspects of our relationship.

Tensions will mount in other ways: the US government will step up pressure on allies to not buy Chinese technology, such as telecommunication equipment from the government-controlled, innovative and low-priced Huawei.

The pressure is also likely to mount on the US government to close down the 500 CCP-sponsored Confucius Institutes on US campuses, and close down the CCP subsidies behind the "1,000 Talents Program."

The US government may forbid universities to accept CCP-sponsored graduate students. It is also likely to insist or even force US pharmaceutical manufacturers not to allow more than 25 percent in Chinese imports of pharmaceuticals and medical supplies.

The US government could demand that US-based pharmaceutical and vaccine innovators increase spending on cybersecurity to prevent Chinese cyber-hacking, into COVID-19 research, and in other vital areas of America's most sensitive infrastructure, and those of US allies.

In summary, the competition between our two countries will intensify dramatically.

We must certainly hope the competition stays businesslike and peaceful.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post COVID-19's impact on national security appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Since US President Donald Trump's "maximum pressure" policy began in late 2018, inflation in Iran has averaged 45%, the value of the rial (Iran's currency) has fallen by 20%, and its GDP has fallen by 5%.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

During recent protests that broke out in 100 Iranian cities, an estimated 1,000 protesters were killed by the regime. Thousands more were arrested. However, the theocratic totalitarian regime remains in control, as does its worldwide terror organization, which it uses to "export" its messianic Islamist revolution. So what should we do?

The administration's "maximum pressure" campaign is only in its third inning. It's now time to move to the sixth inning, on our way to the ninth.

The United States should engage, contain, and dismantle the worldwide Iranian terror empire. There are numerous options available in this regard for the next year or so. This must be continued until the Iranian regime is bankrupt, an event that could, finally, lead to regime change.

Economically, we should seek to close Iran-backed Hezbollah's narco-terror organization, particularly in Latin America and West Africa. We should cut off worldwide trade with Iran, by telling our trading partners they can deal with us or with Iran, but not both, and cutting off all trade with countries that don't listen.

On the cultural front, as the Belgian government has done, the United States should outlaw Iranian sponsorship of mosques, madrassas, and Islamic centers to prevent Islamist radicalization. Research shows these are terror-related political institutions, rather than religious ones. The same phenomenon has been discovered elsewhere in Europe, where several governments have taken similar actions regarding Saudi-controlled mosques, schools, and Islamic centers. The United States could recommend doing the same in African and Latin American countries.

On the military front, the United States should also move more military assets to the Persian Gulf region, and prepare for a continuous low-level military engagement of the kind Israel is so proficient in. We should employ constant cyberattacks to sabotage and paralyze Iran's nuclear weapons and missile development projects. Within Iran, we should arm the 50% of the population that are not Persians, eventually dividing the nation in half.

Diplomatically, we should strive to throw Iran out of the United Nations for preaching genocide against us.

Eventually, we should set up a war crimes tribunal to investigate Iran's leaders' crimes against humanity, both against the United States and its own citizens.

It's time to turn up the heat to prevent the all-out shooting war that we're heading into if the Iranian regime is not stopped.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post It's time to apply maximum pressure on Iran appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

The collective joint communique titled the "London Declaration," highlighted NATO's strategies to counteract China and Russia, and generic "terrorism" by both state and nonstate actors.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Most astonishingly, however, the declaration did not define "terrorism," nor did it mention specific nonstate terrorist actors such as Islamic State, al-Qaida, and others. It also said nothing of Iran's sponsorship of terrorism and cultural subversion throughout the world, particularly in Europe; it did not acknowledge that the No. 1 threat to Europe is the metastasis of Islamist terrorism and cultural subversion, which are both dictates of Islamic Sharia law, let alone present a strategy to counteract this threat; or discuss the fact that Turkey and Qatar finance the Muslim Brotherhood, the hub organization that birthed every major Sunni Islamist terrorist group in the world.

The declaration further failed to discuss the fact that Saudi Arabia finances the worldwide spread of Wahhabism, which is similar to but organizationally distinct from the Muslim Brotherhood; it did not discuss Turkey's role in facilitating the invasion of Europe by more than 2 million Muslim "refugees" and migrants since 2015; made no mention of the Islamist radicalization of Turkey, and Ankara's financing of the construction of hundreds if not thousands of mosques throughout Europe, Latin America, Africa, and beyond; or explore whether Turkey, which is now 99% Muslim, should even be a member of NATO, which is 90% Christian.

To its credit, the London Declaration discussed "irregular migration" (presumably from unnamed Middle Eastern countries) – but presented no strategy to stop it or to deport the Islamist terrorists and their supporters who have already penetrated and settled in European countries. Below is the entirety of this passage:

"We, as an Alliance, are facing distinct threats and challenges emanating from all strategic directions. Russia's aggressive actions constitute a threat to Euro-Atlantic security; terrorism in all its forms and manifestations remains a persistent threat to us all. State and nonstate actors challenge the rules-based international order. Instability beyond our borders is also contributing to irregular migration. We face cyber and hybrid threats."

Since NATO has been consistently unable or unwilling to recognize the growing Islamic demographic and cultural/political threat, it stands no chance of successfully defending those it is charged to protect.

Consider: Mohammed is now one of the top 10 names for male babies in America, one of the top five names for male babies in Europe, and the most popular name for male babies in London, England. According to one veteran researcher, France will become a Muslim-majority nation within 40-45 years.

Until it decides to openly and honestly address the actual internal and external threats it faces, NATO has no chance of successfully defending the people of its member nations, who are forced to pay for this travesty.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post NATO's strategy to protect Europe is doomed to fail appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Before we approach these questions, we must first try to understand the sources of instability.

With regard to democracies, the United States and the United Kingdom, in particular, have become unstable because the gap between Right and Left has grown too wide. America's government-run educational system has been taken over by the intolerant and socialistic Left, which has turned learning institutions into indoctrination chambers.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

Most of our students in secondary schools and colleges are able to graduate without understanding the US Constitution or Bill of Rights, basic civics or history. If you doubt this, see America at the Precipice, a major research report by Save the West editor Jon Sutz, that contains some of the shocking metrics. A sampling:

• 82% of American adults cannot identify two rights stated in the Declaration of Independence.
• Less than 50% of American adults understand the basic purpose of the Constitution or can identify even one of their rights under it.
• Only 26% of Americans can identify all three branches of the government – a sharp decline from 2011, when 38% could do so.

Further, America's children are being infused in our schools with a belief that socialism and communism are ideal political-economic systems. Surveys conducted in 2019 reveal that 70% of millennials say that they would vote for a socialist for elective office, and 36% "approve of communism" (up from 28% in 2018). The climax of this indoctrination is an overt, explicit desire to overthrow the US government and install communist totalitarianism.

Deprived of knowledge and appreciation of our governmental system, and indoctrinated in notorious, oppressive ideologies, our children emerge from our schools unprepared to become functional, patriotic American citizens, yet we allow them to vote when they reach 18 years of age. Similarly, new (legal) immigrants are under-educated but are allowed to vote once they become citizens.

In Israeli democracy, the ideological gap between the two leading parties is not as wide as in the United States, but the population is confused and split, more due to the personalities of the two leaders, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Blue and White leader Benny Gantz, and only secondarily due to the issues. In general, though, the challengers in both countries are leftists who would seek to implement some elements of socialism, which can sound good even though it has bankrupted almost every country that embraced it during its 150 years of existence.

In contrast, the key dictatorships have become increasingly unstable primarily because of the rise of the internet and social media, which has fueled the spread of knowledge and the desire for the freedom the citizens of these dictatorships observe in democracies. For example:

• Iran: An incredibly mismanaged dictatorship that has nevertheless been successful in creating the single largest Islamist terrorist organization in the world: Hezbollah. Iran operates a worldwide network of terrorist organizations in 30 countries in the Middle East, Africa, Europe and Latin America, with a collective force of over 400,000 terrorists. Yet when the messianic rulers of the Islamic Republic suddenly raised the price of gasoline from a highly subsidized $0.35 to a more realistic $1.00, protests erupted spontaneously in 100 cities, leading to the deaths of nearly 150 protesters, and according to other reports, many more.
• Iraq: Protesters have grown weary of Iranian infiltration of their government and society. The Iranian consulate in Najaf was burned down, and Iraqi authorities, acting under Iranian orders, have killed over 350 protesters since the protests began in October.

So which are more unstable, democracies or dictatorships?

And what are the ramifications for US national security interests?

Over time, dictatorships should prove less stable, as their populations increasingly demand rule of law, human rights, and growing economies. Democratic instability is more transitory, as new parties and personalities run for office, and mold their messages better to the majority of voters.

One unfortunate result of this worldwide political turmoil, however, is that the dictatorships might seek to attack their adversaries to build up domestic support for their inherently corrupt governments. The democracies must become far more alert to the dictatorships' propensity for both external subversion and war, as their internal threats rise.

Watch out for unpredictable wars and/or skirmishes in 2020, particularly from Iran, the No. 1 enemy of America.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Democracies or dictatorships, which will fall first? appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Indeed, the European Union has publicly stated that Judea and Samaria should be turned over to the Palestinian Authority, even though the PA has never ruled over that region and has never engaged in serious negotiations with Israel over the area.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

In a supreme irony, the ECJ ruling came nearly 81 years to the day after the Kristallnacht pogrom, when German paramilitary forces attacked Jews throughout Germany, destroying 267 synagogues, attacking 7,000 businesses and arresting 30,000 men for the "crime" of being Jewish.

This ECJ decision demonstrates that the Europeans have learned nothing from the Nazis' attacks on the Jews before and during World War II, or from the murder of 60 million people, 90% of whom were Christians and non-Jews, during the Nazi takeover of Europe.

The current ECJ legal attack could well embolden Islamists in Europe and elsewhere, including Hamas, Hezbollah and other proxies of Iran, as they may interpret it as moral justification. This would jeopardize not only Jews in Israel but also Christians and non-Islamist Muslims the world over.

So why is the European Union acting this way, and why is its collective court acting with such anti-Semitic bias?

Why is the European Union acting against democratic Israel, instead of illegitimate, tyrannical Iran?

Why are the Europeans, as a whole, acting against their own self-interest?

European Union member states must protest the injustice forced on Israel by the ECJ and defy its ruling.

The United States, for its part, should overreact, with the aim of sending the strongest possible message to the world. The US Treasury should sanction the ECJ court and, so long as it maintains this unjust and anti-Semitic ruling, all the judges involved on a personal basis, and treat this court as a criminal entity for, in effect, providing material support for terrorism.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post US should sanction the European Court of Justice appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

While isolationists were particularly happy to hear such promises, Trump should not be considered an isolationist. His America First notion is more nuanced.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

While it's true that Trump doesn't think the United States should be the world's policeman, instead calling on its allies to protect themselves while offering US aid to help them do so, his America First concept was based on his belief that previous presidents sometimes acted in a globalist way. Namely, pursuing policies that sent American jobs overseas, crafting trade deals that disproportionately benefited other nations and their citizens and fighting "endless wars" in Iraq, Syria and Africa.

Because the definition of America First is subject to a variety of interpretations, a clearer definition is warranted:

Subscribe to The JNS Daily Syndicate by email and never miss our top stories
Your email
1) Economically, America First should mean policies designed to maximize GDP growth, such as lower taxes, fewer regulations, revisiting archaic protectionists laws and crafting more equitable trade deals.

2) Culturally, America First should foster a respect for English as the primary language of commerce, government and human interaction in the United States; respect for the US Constitution; rejection of Sharia law, which rejects the US Constitution and customs; and advancing school choice.

3) Physically, America First should lead to a strong military, which encourages diplomatic, economic, legal and other negotiated means for conflict resolution. As Trump has stated, the military should be used only when absolutely necessary, and only if there is a plan to win.

Then there is the complicated task of balancing short-term vs long-term issues.

A glaring historical example was the "America First Committee" of 1940, popularized by famous aviator Charles Lindbergh, which sought to keep the United States out of a land war in Europe but which actually encouraged German and Japanese aggression. Three days after the Pearl Harbor attack on Dec. 7, 1941, the America First Committee, with its 800,000 members, was dissolved in disrepute.

We certainly do not want to repeat that isolationist mistake.

Our current key challenge is to clearly balance both short- and long-term issues. A logical physical protection strategy should borrow from the Cold War. We need two separate enemy/adversary containment strategies: one for the Reds (the communists and socialists in China and Russia) and one for the Greens (the Muslim supremacists of Iran, Islamic State, the Muslim Brotherhood and its financial sponsors Turkey and Qatar, and Saudi Arabia, which supports Wahabi Islamist terrorists and cultural subversives worldwide.)

A modernized America First policy demands that the United States contain these two threats, preferably with non-physical strategies, for as long as it takes until our adversaries and "frenemies" begin to honor basic human rights and stop posing threats to peaceful people and nations.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Updating 'America First' for the long term appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Practically since the birth of the United States of America, various ideologies have waged war against us. For the Islamists (Muslim supremacists), this was but a continuation of their – at that time – uninterrupted 1,200-year war against non-Muslims everywhere, and Muslims whose version of the faith they didn't agree with.

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

It wasn't until President Thomas Jefferson decided to stand up to the endless, unprovoked, savage assaults against US trade vessels by the Barbary pirates that violent jihadist acts against us stopped – for a while.

Since the 9/11 attacks, numerous influential Islamists have articulated a new strategy in their war against us: to draw us into military conflicts on their home turf that will bog us down in perpetuity, cost us a fortune in blood and treasure, and from which we will find it difficult to extricate ourselves – ever. Here are a few examples:

Al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden said so explicitly, as reported by CNN on Nov. 2, 2004.

In a video first released by Al Jazeera, bin Laden said Al-Qaida was "continuing this policy in bleeding America to the point of bankruptcy. Allah willing, and nothing is too great for Allah." He added that the mujahideen had done the same thing to the Soviet Union in Afghanistan in the 1980s, "using guerrilla warfare and the war of attrition."

He also said Al-Qaida had found it "easy" to "provoke and bait" the Bush administration.

On Sept. 14, 2007, Anis al-Naqqash, a convicted Islamist terrorist in Lebanon, said the following, according to the Middle East Media Research Institute:

"The American empire must die. The strategy that serves our interests is to get the US embroiled in endless wars, which it cannot win."

Trump has said on numerous occasions that he has no interest in the United States fighting endless wars, knowing full well that democracies are not capable of maintaining the public will to fight forever.

Thus, the obvious question is: Can we just stop fighting these wars, because we don't like them and are not good at fighting them, and don't want to incur the cost, in blood and money?

Unfortunately, the answer is no.

Whether we like it or not, the United States and all democracies (50% of the world's population) are fighting an endless war against dictatorships (the other 50% of the world's population).

We are under endless attack by two distinct enemies:

The "Greens": Islamists, including those who perpetrate and fund terrorism, such as Iran, Islamic State, Al Qaida and other violent groups, as well as those who are waging the "cultural jihad" to advance Islamism through non-violent means (most notably funded and supported by Turkey, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan).

The "Reds": Communists and socialists (China and Russia, and also subversive domestic groups including ANTIFA and other far-left organizations).

So how do we defend ourselves from these two endless global and domestic threats, without bankrupting our government or sacrificing our brave soldiers?

As I have noted before, the best model to use is that of the Cold War, namely to treat war as a marathon rather than a sprint.

For more than 40 years, from 1946-89, we focused on containing the communist Soviet Union and all its satellite nations and regimes. Sometimes we fought physically, as in Korea and Vietnam, to help stop communist regimes from violently overthrowing and enslaving other nations. But primarily we fought through other means, such as cultural, economic, diplomatic and legal battles.

We also grew our economy exponentially, and became stronger, in multiple ways, every year – while the Soviets grew weaker.

Finally, after 43 years, the Soviet Union gave up, but the failed socialist ideology survived, both in Russia and in China, which – thanks to its economic reforms, which we helped enable – now poses a rising, existential military threat to the United States.

Further, we have allowed our schools and other major cultural institutions to be gradually infiltrated and influenced by proponents of socialist doctrines, to the point where, as documented in a detailed report by SaveTheWest editor and videographer Jon Sutz, "America At The Precipice":

• "The Communist Manifesto" is the most-assigned economics textbook in US colleges, assigned more than twice as frequently as any other economics book.

• 64% of Americans overall (across political parties) now agree with Karl Marx's core socialist doctrine, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

• 58% of American millennials say they'd rather live under communism, socialism or fascism than under capitalism.

Similarly, nearly 1,400 years after the death of Muhammad, we are still fighting to protect ourselves from physical Islamist warfare (and cultural subversion).

If possible, these two fronts should be fought as cold wars, not hot ones. We should focus on containing both the Reds and Greens by confronting them culturally, economically, legally and diplomatically. We should also use our superior cyber abilities, and only employ our military assets when absolutely necessary.

We must maintain this marathon until the economic failures of the Reds and Greens forces their leaders to focus internally, on their own territories and citizens, and adopt more democratic systems.

We must be patient, as difficult as that is for democracies.

It certainly beats the World War II model of mutual death and destruction.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post The 'endless war' is inevitable – and winnable appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

What can be accomplished if and when US-Iranian negotiations get underway? What are the chances of success, when democracies negotiate with dictatorships, and in particular a dictatorship that is the No. 1 Islamist terror-sponsoring nation in the world?

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

It is worth recalling how many times Winston Churchill publicly warned his fellow Britons of the logical outcome of Nazi Germany's rush to build the world's largest offensive military machine, all in violation of the terms of its surrender under the Versailles Treaty.

Churchill warned that ignoring this threat, and seeking to negotiate with Hitler, not only would not avoid war, it would make it more likely – because the Nazi dictator had no intention of honoring any of his agreements and this appeasement was merely buying the National Socialists more time to build their war machine.

Churchill was dismissed as a "warmonger," just as John Bolton was until he resigned from/was ejected from his role as US President Donald Trump's National Security Adviser.

As with any negotiation, the United States can win, lose, or tie. The US would aim to tie, as is common within Western civilization, which entails compromise by both sides. Unfortunately, the mullahs who rule Iran do not share this Western philosophy. Their goal is to unconditionally defeat the United States. Recall that at the same time they were "negotiating" the nuclear "deal" with former US President Barack Obama, Iran's "supreme leader" Ayatollah Khamenei was leading public chants of, "Death to America!"

So it is for the United States to determine the outcome of this negotiation.

If we simply focus on renegotiating the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, maybe inspections will be tightened, and maybe the 10-year sunset clause (after which the mullahs will be free to build all the nuclear weapons they want) will be extended to 15-20 years, and maybe intercontinental ballistic missiles to carry nuclear weapons will be included – for the first time.

This outcome might be portrayed as a victory, but will still give Iran plenty of time, money and ability to cheat, just as we recently discovered they have been since they "agreed" to the JCPOA. And, as we also recently discovered, the mullahs have been relentlessly working to obtain the material necessary to build nuclear weapons, including from JCPOA signatory nations.

The deal would still grant Iran the right to have nuclear weapons and long-range missiles, eventually, which would, over time, become an existential threat to the United States. In other words, Iran would win.

However, if the US insists on winning, it should insist that Iran meets the State Department's 12 conditions for normalizing relations with America.

Iran should be forced to make even more concessions, including:

• Dismantling its worldwide terror organizations, cells, and operatives.
• Closing its 17 Al-Mustafa universities in Africa, and its 80 "cultural centers" in Latin America.
• Apologizing to the US and Israel for preaching genocide against both countries – and for its proven role in helping al-Qaida perpetrate the 9/11 attacks.
• Stopping its imperialistic designs, and agreeing to stay within its own borders.

Iran would only agree to this losing deal (for them) if they were convinced that the US military will be unleashed, both to retaliate for the thousands of Americans and US soldiers killed and maimed by Iran, and to prevent the mullahs who ordered it all from ever acquiring nuclear weapons.

Without the definite determination to win, the Trump administration will most likely seek to tie, which will lead to a US defeat.

We must all hope that the Trump administration does not seek an early tie, but has the determination and patience to do whatever it takes to win.

The future of the United States and Western civilization depends on it.

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post Negotiations with Iran are guaranteed to fail appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.

Recent reports indicate that the European Union is considering a regulation requiring warning labels to be placed on Israeli imports, cautioning buyers that the products may be made in Israeli "settlements" or "colonies."

It must be noted, however, that like the United Nations, which obsessively focuses on demonizing Israel while ignoring the worst human-rights abusers in the world, the European Union is not going to implement warning labels that advise its citizens that:

• China is occupying Tibet and Hong Kong.
• Russia is occupying Crimea and east Ukraine.
• Saudi Arabia is one of the world's worst human-rights violators. (Yet European colleges and professors gladly take its money. Similarly Qatar, which funds the anti-Western, anti-Semitic, pro-Islamist extremism propaganda throughout the world, has poured $340 million into Northwestern University.)

Follow Israel Hayom on Facebook and Twitter

• Iran is occupying large swaths of Iraq, is the world's largest sponsor of Islamist terrorism and hangs gays in the streets for the "crime" of being gay (it's worth noting that Israel is the only nation in the entire Middle East in which the LGBT community can live free, protected by law.)
• In Indonesia, the law dictates that teenagers be publicly whipped for cuddling and that gays be whipped.
• Libyan Islamists routinely capture, terrorize and auction off black African slaves, some for as little as $400 (females and young girls are priced much higher).
• The groups advocating BDS against Israel are often affiliated with, or fronts for Islamist terrorist organizations.

Not one of the anti-Israel BDS organizations has mounted a campaign against any of the above human-rights violators or terror-sponsoring nations, yet they claim they are not anti-Semitic.

This potential EU labeling policy is reminiscent of the Nazi boycotts of Jewish businesses during the late 1930s, during which stores owned by Jews were defaced by government thugs with "Jude" signs and warnings not to buy from Jews:

So why is the European Union behaving in a racist, anti-Semitic way, by threatening to institute a boycott against Jewish products?

Didn't Europe learn anything from World War II?

Reprinted with permission from JNS.org.

The post European anti-Semitism is out of control, again appeared first on www.israelhayom.com.