HADAR

The JewishPress.com was the first major English language Jewish/Israel news publication to have the story about the video.

Not exactly what Jewish Home voters thought they would get on election day.

The Channel 10 report included the fact that none of the Likud's district candidates would get in and even MK Carmel Shama could be on the chopping bloc.

The election-video recalls the practical achievements of the government over the last four years.

The entire concept of non-member observers has no bearing on international law.

Lessons from Begin's push to annex the Golan.

East Jerusalem has become code for: where Jews shouldn't be.

Last week's U.S. presidential debate was a victory for Romney on all accounts, especially if one judges by the closing statements, where Obama couldn't muster any specific reason why voters should re-elect him aside from the fact that he was trying really hard as president. Looking at polls on how people view the candidates, I’m beginning to wonder why it is that Obama leads Romney in national polls and whether that is going start to change in a big way.

Imagine Jews launched massive protests for every anti-Semitic youtube video.

The institution of party primaries in Israel needs to be expanded not shrunk, so that the government will be under the supervision of the people from which it derives power and the moral authority to govern.

In depth analysis of the Likud's final list for the Knesset (part I in a series).

Israeli willingness to do whatever it takes to prevent weapons of mass destruction from falling into the wrong hands may be the only thing preventing civil wars or heated rhetoric from becoming mass atrocities.

In 1992, the Tehiya Party brought down Shamir's government over the Madrid Conference, leading to Labor's victory and the signing of the Oslo Accords.

Since the debate there's been a lot of analysis as to whether the President designated the attack on the U.S. embassy in Bengahzi, Libya, an act of terrorism. The President indeed used the term "act of terror" the next day but it wasn't clear if he was talking about that attack or 9-11. For the next week administration officials described the attacks as part of a protest-riot against the the U.S. over the "Innocence of Muslims" video which got out of hand.

Former U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates recently warned that, “The results of an American or Israeli military strike on Iran could, in my view, prove catastrophic, haunting us for generations in that part of the world.” During Thursday's Vice Presidential debate the statement was read to Vice President Joe Biden and Vice Presidential Candidate Paul Ryan  at the start of segment on Iran. What exactly Gates meant by “catastrophic” I’m not sure (Muslim/Middle East resentment towards the U.S.? Lack of access to oil? Increase in global terrorism?), but during the debate, both Biden and debate moderator Martha Raddatz seemed to argue that it meant going to war with Iran.

Despite Obama’s poor debate performance, Romney’s rising likability numbers and voters saying he would better handle the economy – and two more polls which give him a significant bump since the debate – there is reason to fear that voters will still not vote against the incumbent.

The top 35 of the Likud's Knesset list and which spots are what.

It cannot be claimed it is fair for one party to attack another, but not for the other to attack back...

Like Liberman before, Lapid will likely be Netanyahu's major partner as under almost any coalition figuration Yesh Atid can bring down the coalition.

Abbas is reported worth millions. So why not let him save his own skin, instead of having Israel repeatedly bail the Palestinian Authority out?

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton gave an interview stating that the U.S. would not be setting any deadlines for Iran.

In the version of events provided by Argo, it wasn't radical Islamists who stormed the U.S. embassy in Tehran, but the Iranian people as a whole.

Mitt Romney seems to have a genuinely friendly view towards Israel, which he has made clear in various public statements and his recent visit to Israel. Yet, in his foreign policy address yesterday, he adopted the position which is at the heart of U.S. pressure on Israel: supporting Palestinian statehood.

Congratulations, JStreet, you won before you even started! Perhaps you can save your breath, energy and George Soros' and god knows who else's money and go home.

A US diplomat proposed that UN negotiating rooms be 'inebriation-free zones.'

The U.S. reiterated its rejection of Israel's call for "clear red lines." Today, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu responded, saying those "who refuse to put red lines in front of Iran, don't have a moral right to put a red light in front of Israel." Here is the Prime Minister in his own words - responding to a reporter's question about the State Department's position:

Soon after the attacks on American embassies in Egypt and Libya, Presidential hopeful Mitt Romney and his running mate Paul Ryan criticized President Obama for lack a clear and forceful message to the world. Soon after, the administration provided another example of why this was true, with Obama stating that Egypt was neither friend nor foe, while the State Department confirmed that Egypt is indeed an ally.

On Sunday, Wall Street Journal editor and columnist Bret Stephens did what too many need to do: own up to the mistake of supporting the Disengagement Plan.

Ayalon's new position on the Palestinian statehood doesn't quite match his prior criticism of the Palestinian's bid for statehood at the UN.

With Muslims attacking American embassies in the Middle East and rioting all over the world over an obscure youtube video, the U.S. State Department and the E.U. can no longer seriously contend that anti-Americanism, anti-Westernism are due to support for Israel or the fact that a Palestinian state has not been established or an Israeli-Palestinian peace accord has been signed.