Saturday, February 20, 2016

A Single Lifetime Later, Part II

At a recent conference, I was having lunch with 3 other Jews. One, was a conservative male. The 2 females were liberal and leftist. One of the women mentioned that not all criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic. Of course that is true. Any country, any individual, is subject to legitimate criticism. But that comment missed the point entirely - as most criticism of Israel is, in fact, anti-Semitic. And that anti-Israel criticism has helped bring about anti-Jewish attitudes worldwide. After all, when one country is held to a standard that no other country is held to, and when the people of that country are repeatedly demonized, well, the outcome is rather predictable.

The Dutch have been having a problem with anti-Semitism and Jew hatred in their schools. One teacher was giving a lesson on democratic values. A female student of Moroccan descent said: "If I had a Kalashnikov I'd gun down all the Jews." The teacher, taken aback, tried to get an expression of empathy from this student. So, the teacher asked what a 5 year old living in the Netherlands had to do with Israeli policies. Said the same student: "The Jews should die."

You see, when Israel is demonized, when world leaders including Ban Ki-Moon justify or seek to understand Palestinian violence against Jews, then the lines ultimately get blurred. Israel is Jews, Jews are Israel, Israel is the worst country on earth, Jews therefore are the worst people and should die.

As the demonization of Israel grows, so do the number of anti-Israel NGOs. Here in the US, we have groups such as Students for Justice in Palestine, the Muslim American Society, Jewish Voice for Peace, If Americans Knew, CAIR, and others. At the UK's Oxford University, one member of the Labour Club just resigned in protest. The Club endorsed the "Israel Apartheid Week" on campus, a week that also occurs on many US college campuses. In addition to inviting anti-Semitic speakers to campus during that week, Jewish students are harassed as well.

Some members of the Club not only have expressed their solidarity with Hamas, they have defended Hamas' murdering of Israeli civilians. One student claimed that "most accusations of anti-Semitism are just the Zionists crying wolf." Just imagine college students in the UK and US during WWII announcing their support for Hitler - especially as the bombs were falling on London. One must ask how support for Hamas has reached this point. Hamas, non-democratic, anti-women, anti-gays, where allegations of providing information to Israel can result in immediate execution without a trial - how does an anti-Western group like that garner such support? By convincing the world that Israel and Jews are evil. But why do Westerners buy into such lies?

There are Arab members of the Knesset (Parliament) in Israel. One, Haneen Zoabi, said this: "The occupier (Israel) does not have the right to self-defense." So, according to this Arab member of the Knesset, Israelis only have the right to die. As much of the world has come to believe the same thing, we see how anti-Semitism has reached its highest level since the end of WWII.

At the above mentioned lunch, I replied to the woman who said not all anti-Israel criticism is anti-Semitic. After agreeing, I started to tell her some of the history of the Middle East, as I suspected she had no clue. As I was simply giving dates and what occurred (see Part I), the other woman got a disgusted look on her face and got up and excused herself. I am used to liberals not being able to tolerate hearing facts that are contrary to their world views.

But how sad when my fellow Jews not only have no interest in hearing the truth, but will automatically align with the Palestinians as the underdogs. How sad that they accept without hesitation all the anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian propaganda. I would love to ask the woman who walked why she supports a group that is anti-feminist and anti-gay. I suspect I would be told that that's not true, that Hamas and the Palestinians love women and gays. Other Jews post pro-Palestinian articles on their Facebook pages. One such link to an article that was on the Huffington Post was by a Palestinian and was entitled "The US Must Accept that Israeli Leadership Wants Apartheid not Peace."

The title of this article is akin to Jimmy Carter's book, "Israel, Peace not Apartheid." Not surprisingly, the article makes no mention of Palestinian terrorism and murder of Israeli civilians. Only a few days ago, an off duty 21 year old Israeli soldier, a husband and father to a baby girl, was murdered by Palestinian terrorists. He was stabbed to death, stabbing being the preferred method of killing in this third intifada. The murderer was 14 years old.

Also recently, after the murder of a 19 year old Israeli border policewoman, the father of the attacker said this: "We received the news with joy, a martyr, our lord chose him from among the people to be a martyr, Allah will pardon him..." Want to know why there is no peace? Because today, as in 1947, as in 1948, as in 1956, as in 1967, as in 1973, as in 2000, as in 2008, the Arabs prefer to kill Jews rather than have their own state. When children are taught to murder, when parents are happy that their children are martyred (killed when attacking Jews) how is peace even conceivable? Peace does not happen when only one side desires it. Maybe somebody can explain that to Fabius, Moon, Kerry and Obama, and the rest of the liberal establishment.

A Single Lifetime Later, Part I

It is just over 70 years since the end of WWII and the Holocaust. A single lifetime. Yet, it appears that worldwide anti-Semitism is at its most virulent level since that time.

According to one study, anti-Semitic violence has seen a 40% increase worldwide in 2014. Danny Danon is Israel's ambassador to the UN. Said Danon: "At the UN, I live with anti-Semitism 24/7." UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon recently said this: "...Palestinians are losing hope. Young people are especially losing hope. They are angered by the stifling policies of the occupation. They are frustrated by the structures on their daily lives...the dream of a sovereign, contiguous and independent Palestinian state slip has not meaningfully changed (over half a century)." Added Moon, it is "human nature to react to occupation."

Thank you Secretary General Moon for justifying Palestinian violence against Israelis. Of course, we have seen the same false allegations from our Secretary of State as well as the White House. Nothing has meaningfully changed? As pointed out in a prior post, Israel built schools and universities and hospitals in the West Bank areas controlled by Palestinians. The West Bank has seen significant economic growth. It is not a question of young people losing hope; rather, young children even are taught to hate Jews, to want to kill Jews.

But the Arabs are never held to any accountability by the rest of the world. It does not matter that they were killing Jews in the Middle East before there was a modern day Israel. It does not matter that they rejected a state of their own when the UN voted Partition of the British Mandate in 1947. The UN divided the Mandate territory into two states - one Arab and one Jewish. But the Arabs announced before the vote they would never agree to the existence of a Jewish state - even though the only state to ever occupy the same land was the State of Israel 2000 years ago. Various foreign invaders occupied the land up to WWI. With the Allied victory, the UK controlled the land under their mandate, until turning it over to the UN.

Months after the UN voted partition, the State of Israel declared its independence. Why didn't the Arabs of Palestine do the same? The UN gave them land from the Mandate area for their own state. Instead, five Arab countries attacked Israel the very next day, the first of many efforts to wipe Israel off the map. When Bill Clinton invited Yasser Arafat and Ehud Barak to the White House in 2000, it was with the expectation of having the two sides make a deal. When Barak offered a state to Arafat, on land that the Israelis controlled since 1967 only because of another Arab war trying to wipe Israel off the map and failing again, Arafat's reply was to get up and leave. He went back to the West Bank and started the 2nd intifada - with Arabs blowing up Jews on buses, in cafes and malls, and even at a Passover Seder.

When Ehud Olmert, under the auspices of George W. Bush, offered a state to Mahmoud Abbas, the reply by Abbas was the same as Arafat's - silence. No acceptance of a Palestinian state. We now have a third intifada going on in Israel. This time, Arabs are killing Jews with knives, cars and guns. Meanwhile, the rest of the world believes all the Palestinian propaganda that Israel will never offer them a state. If you were to offer someone ownership of a home time after time right next door to yours, and each and every time they refuse and instead keep killing members of your household, at what point would you say, "who wants them as a neighbor?"

Now, the French Foreign Minister, Laurent Fabius, has called for an international conference to resolve the Israeli/Palestinian conflict. After seven years of trying, Obama has given up. Or has he? I would bet that he is working behind the scenes to push the establishment of a Palestinian state. If these proposed negotiations fail to result in a deal, Fabius said that the French will "live up to our responsibilities and recognize Palestine." So, exactly how does that give the Palestinians any incentive to negotiate if the outcome for them will be the same regardless of what they do? Even as they continue to murder Jews.

In reply to Ban Ki-Moon's ridiculous comments, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu said this: "The Palestinian terrorists don't want to build a state, they want to destroy a state, and they say that proudly. They want to murder Jews everywhere and they state that proudly. They don't murder for peace and they don't murder for human rights."


The passing of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was a sad day for his family and for the country. In a Court that was often divided along ideological lines, with 5-4 decisions, the question is - should Obama be allowed to appoint the replacement for Scalia. There is no doubt that he is permitted to submit his nomination to the Senate for confirmation. The real issue is whether or not the Senate should act, or wait until a new president is sworn into office.

As always, I prefer to dispense with the nonsense first. If the Senate refuses to act it is not a result of racism, not because Obama is black. The Democrats love to play the race card, and frankly, like many Americans, I'm sick of it. The appointment of another liberal justice to the Supreme Court will shift the ideological balance to the left, affecting our rights for possibly a generation or more.

This is also not a question of simply doing what the Constitution says. There is no time limit for the Senate's review of any nominee. And let's be clear - the Democrats will always play hardball when it suits their purposes. It was then Senator Barack Obama who joined in the filibuster of George Bush's nominee Samuel Alito. Here was Senator Obama's take on the process: "There are some who believe that the president, having won the election, should have the complete authority to appoint his nominee, and the Senate should only examine whether or not the justice is intellectually capable..." Obama: "I disagree with this view." Ultimately, Obama voted against Alito, not based on intellectual capability or character, but strictly on ideology.

Now, of course, Obama and the mainstream media say the Senate should do its job and not be obstructionist. Senator Obama did not agree with President Obama. Senator Obama described Alito as not one who would uphold "the traditional role of the Supreme Court as a bastion of equality and justice for United States citizens." Translation: Alito is just too damn conservative. Let's be honest, Obama's concern for "equality and justice" is only from the leftist point of view. His ideas of "equality and justice" would not align with conservative ideas of those principles on any number of issues.

For example, in the cases dealing with the right of Americans to own guns, the four liberal justices voted against that individual right. Never mind that for nearly 240 years Americans have enjoyed that right. A fifth liberal justice would do away with the 2nd Amendment's right to keep and bear arms. After they do away with the 2nd Amendment, it would be open season on the 1st Amendment. Recall the 5-4 decision in Citizens United, upholding the free speech rights of people to speak out during an election. The Court allowed unlimited expenditures by private citizens and groups for campaign ads, so long as there was no coordination with a candidate or candidate's campaign.

But what did the Obama administration argue to the Court in Citizens United? They argued that even books could be banned as independent expenditures, if the Court were to side with them. And let's not forget that it is Democrats who actually want to Amend the 1st Amendment to overturn the Citizens United decision. Who thinks tinkering with that Amendment is a good idea?

Chuck Schummer is the likely leader of the Senate Democrats following the next election (and, hopefully, as minority leader). What did the esteemed Senator have to say when it was George Bush doing the nominating of Supreme Court justices? "We should reverse the presumption of confirmation. The Supreme Court is dangerously out of balance. We cannot afford to see Justice Stevens replaced by another Roberts, or Justice Ginsburg by another Alito." Schummer made those comments with 18 months left in President Bush's term of office. The Republicans are suggesting holding off for the 11 months left in Obama's term.

What comes to mind is the scene in Casablanca where Louie, the Vichy French police captain is ordered by the Germans to close down Rick's Cafe Americain. Not having a reason, he comes up with "Close the place down, I'm shocked, shocked that there's gambling go on." Simultaneously, Louie is handed, and immediately pockets, his gambling winnings given to him by one of Rick's employees. The Democrats are always shocked, shocked when the Republicans employ any of the same tactics that they use.

I am looking for the Republicans to stand strong on this issue. If they cave in and approve an Obama nominee, expect Trump's ratings to go even higher. Trump is not my first, second or even third choice. But Trump gives in to no one; he is perceived as someone who would take the heat and fight back. And that is his appeal.