Jewelry - Making in the Holy Land

Jewelry-Making in the Holy Land: A Wise Profession for a Peripatetic People Posted: 07 Jun 2013 08:37 AM PDT Assembling rings (circa 1925, Cigarbox collection) Jewels were always the currency of travelers.  Gemstones were more reliable than currency and lighter than gold bullion. Even today, some investors are smitten with a "refugee mentality," financial experts recently told The Wall Street Journal. "If the world gets a computer virus," one explained, "and suddenly you need to move $10 million in 48 hours, gold will set off metal detectors and too much cash gets cumbersome, but you slip on a $5 million ring and a $5 million necklace and you've got no problems." Tragically, that scenario repeated itself  throughout Jewish history.  According to some accounts, prior to the expulsion of Jews from Spain in 1492 a rumor spread that many Jews swallowed diamonds and gold in order to take their wealth with them. Thieves killed many and sliced open their stomachs in their search for treasure.  The Holocaust is fraught with tales of Jews attempting to use gems to buy their escape.  Diamond polishing (1930, Library  of Congress) Diamond cutting on lathes (1939, Library of Congress) Inspecting diamonds (1939, Library of Congress) Since the 15th century, diamond cutting was a traditional Jewish craft,Wikipedia reports. That's when a Jewish diamond cutter in Belgium invented the scaif, an essential tool for polishing.  The first diamond polishing plant was opened in a Jewish town in Eretz Yisrael by Dutch refugee experts. By 1944 the industry employed 3,300 workers in 33 factories in Palestine. Today, Israel is one of the world centers for preparation and sale of diamonds. Today's posting is dedicated to Stella and Jordan -- Happy Anniversary and many, many more  and to Keren B, the jewelry maker and designer Israel Daily Picture website

WSJ in Scathing Editorial Justifies Israel's Mistrust of Obama

Wall Street Journal in Scathing Editorial Justifies Israel's Mistrust of Obama

Largest U.S. paper says Obama's "animus and incompetence" are pushing Israel to strike Iran.

By Gil Ronen, Israel National News

First Publish: 9/2/2012, 9:21 PM

US President Barack Obama

White House

The largest-circulation newspaper in the United States, the Wall Street Journal, has penned a scathing editorial against the Obama Administration's handling of the crisis with Iran, saying that its attitude is pushing the Jewish state to strike Iran on its own.

Following Gen. Martin Dempsey's statement that "I don’t want to be complicit" if Israel chooses to attack Iran, the Journal writes acidly: ”We don’t know what exactly Gen. Dempsey thinks American non-complicity might entail in the event of a strike. Should the Administration refuse to resupply Israel with jets and bombs, or condemn an Israeli strike at the U.N.? Nor do we know if the General was conducting freelance diplomacy or sending a signal from an Administration that feels the same way but doesn’t want to say so during a political season."

The editorial sides with Israel, and says it's no wonder the Israelis are upset at the U.S.  Administration. "It’s one thing to hear from Mahmoud Ahmadinejad that he wants to wipe you off the map: At least it has the ring of honesty. It’s quite another to hear from President Obama that he has your back, even as his Administration tries to sell to the public a make-believe world in which Iran’s nuclear intentions are potentially peaceful, sanctions are working and diplomacy hasn’t failed after three and half years."

"The irony for the Administration is that its head-in-the-sand performance is why many Israeli decision-makers believe they had better strike sooner than later. Not only is there waning confidence that Mr. Obama is prepared to take military action on his own, but there’s also a fear that a re-elected President Obama will take a much harsher line on an Israeli attack than he would before the first Tuesday in November ".

The Obama Administration should be making an effort to show Israel that it takes the Iranian threat seriously, the newspaper opines. Instead, it is doing the opposite. "Since coming to office, Obama Administration policy toward Israel has alternated between animus and incompetence. We don’t know what motivated Gen. Dempsey’s outburst, but a President who really had Israel’s back would publicly contradict it."

As Arutz Sheva noted, Gen. Dempsey's statement means, in essence, that the U.S. does not "have Israel's back," in contradiction to the pledge made by Obama earlier in the year.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/159547