Israel and the Palestinians; GOP Blues; and More on Benghazi

* Israel and the Palestinians. Why the increase in hostilities? Who started it? If one just reads the mainstream media, you may not know that Hamas and Islamic Jihad have launched thousands of rockets and mortars into Israel from Gaza since 2005, when Israel vacated Gaza. Over one thousand were launched into Israel just this year up to Friday. Here is what everyone needs to know about the conflict: "We are sending a short and simple message: there is no security for any Zionist on any single inch of Palestine..." So said Abu Obeida, spokesman for the Hamas military. Inasmuch as Israel left Gaza years ago, and the rockets and mortars are falling on Israel, Obeida is telling the world that the Jews who live in Israel are actually living in "Palestine." As they do not recognize Israel's legitimacy, and say they never will, what else do you need to know?

* While the motivation of the Palestinians is clear, things do get more complicated by the involvement of others. Hamas has launched longer range Fajr-5 missiles at Tel Aviv. These missiles are supplied by Iran, proving that Iran is not just a threat if they get nukes. Meanwhile, the new Islamist leaders in Egypt and Tunisia, as well as the now Islamist leader in Turkey, have expressed their solidarity with the Palestinians. Does that mean they would get involved in a ground war with Israel if Israel sends troops into Gaza? Not likely, given their own internal problems, but it cannot be ruled out. And what about the U.S.? Two former military men (Col. Oliver North and 4 star General Jack Keane, former Vice Chief of Staff of the Army) believe that the Islamists, like Hamas, have felt emboldened since the 9/11/12 attack on Benghazi, killing the U.S. Ambassador and others. Obama blamed the attack on an anti-muslim video, and has taken no action against the terrorists. The U.S. has been perceived as being weak, resulting in a significant increase in anti-U.S. and anti-Israel "chatter." Nevertheless, I credit Obama for stating that "Israel has the right to defend itself," not something that every country acknowledges.

* As noted in the last post, Obama seems intent on presiding over a seriously diminished U.S. military force. A weakened U.S. always emboldens the enemies of peace and freedom. The mainstream media never gets it. In a 11/15/12 editorial, the New York Times opined: "The group (Hamas) has mostly adhered to an informal cease-fire with Israel after the war there in the winter of 2008-09." I suppose if you don't count a few thousand rockets and mortars raining down on Israel then they are correct. The Times continues: "Israel has a right to defend itself, but it's hard to see how Wednesday's operation could be the most effective way of advancing its long-term interests." If rockets were falling all around and in the NY Times' offices, would they want the NYPD and Homeland Security to stop it, or would they say fighting back would not be "an effective way of advancing the Times' long-term interests?" What a bunch of morons! One million Israelis have had to live in bomb shelters the last several days. Israel's long-term interests are in destroying the ability of Hamas to attack; not to worry about "new waves of condemnation against Israel in Arab countries," as the Times suggests. As if the Arabs would otherwise support Israel. The Times then concludes with their usual blaming of Israel - suggesting more countries would support Israel if they made peace with Abbas' Palestinian Authority. The dreamers of the left forever eschewing reality.

* GOP Blues. Numerous post-mortems have been written and verbalized about the GOP and what it needs to do since the election. Here are just a few suggestions that have been mentioned by commentators: back off on social issues like abortion and gay marriage, fix the immigration problem, learn to use social media, stop putting up Mr. Nice Guys to run, become more moderate, be better advocates of the free market, and select a more charismatic candidate. Having three young adults in my family, there seemed to be a general consensus that it was more "cool" and "in" to vote Democrat. My conservative son suggested the GOP stop talking about abortion and gay marriage. Abortion has been legal for 40 years, and gay marriage appears to be headed in the same direction. Mike Pence, a conservative Congressman, won the governorship in Indiana by avoiding discussion of the social issues. My older, more liberal daughter explained that Obama was more likeable, younger, cool, does Twitter, has a stylish wife and more easily relates to people.

* What seems clear from that daughter's analysis is that not a single substantive, policy issue was mentioned. And yet, she may be on to something. An exit poll asked people who was more "in touch with you," with 53% saying Obama to Romney's 43%. That ability to relate to people may trump substantive issues. If people sense that you understand them, they may feel that they can trust you to do the "right" thing on any policy issue. Some Republican governors are not happy with Romney saying Obama won with "financial gifts" from the government. Gov. Bobby Jindal says the GOP needs to campaign for every vote, and not insult people. Jindal says not to let demographics be destiny. As Gov. Scott Walker says, the Republican message works for everyone.

* The Investor's Business Daily suggests that the GOP "narrow the media gap." They want to see the GOP going on the mainstream media TV talk shows and fighting back. Of course, we need articulate conservatives doing so. I would add that conservatives should increasingly speak on college campuses, while acknowledging that even university presidents may hinder that effort. Fordham's president criticized the College Republicans for inviting Ann Coulter to speak, which ultimately resulted in the withdrawal of the invitation. Nevertheless, the effort must be made. When so many people hear only one viewpoint, it is incumbent upon Republicans to get the message out.

* We on the right should not be too discouraged. Of course, we felt extreme disappointment on the re-election of such a divisive, leftist ideologue. But, as noted by Don Campbell in the 11/14/12 USA Today, the GOP holds 30 of 50 governorships. Republicans also hold 27 of 49 state Houses/Assemblies, and 28 of 49 state Senates. (Nebraska has a non-partisan unicameral legislature.) The GOP also has a 40 seat majority in the U.S. House of Representatives and 45 seats in the U.S. Senate. So let's not take the gas pipe just yet. Can we expect Obama to now work with the Republican House? No, he remains an ideologue. He has said he wants to bring "fundamental change" to this country and that "elections have consequences." He wants to be a significant President, like a Roosevelt or a Reagan. So House Republicans will need to pick and choose their battles carefully.

* More on Benghazi. Now former CIA Director Gen. Petraeus claimed that the CIA "talking points" after the 9/11 attack in Benghazi made it clear that the attack was an act of terrorism, likely linked to Al-Qaeda in Africa. Yet, the "talking points" given to UN Ambassador Susan Rice contained no such statement. We are supposed to believe that that is how she ended up on five Sunday talk shows after the attack blaming it all on an anti-muslim video. Said Obama: Amb. Rice had "nothing to do with Benghazi." Then why was she selected to speak for the Administration on all the Sunday shows. Why not the Sec. of State or Sec. of Defense? Might it be that Rice, a longtime political ally of Obama's, could be counted on to lie for the Administration? Or, did they simply keep her in the dark and allow her to tell a story that had no basis in truth?

* Who are the racists and sexists? After Rice received heaps of criticism from Senators McCain and Graham, Obama said if they "want to go after somebody, they should go after me." Is Obama suggesting that, as a woman at the highest level of government, Rice still needs the protection of a man? And how about Congresswoman Marcia Fudge of Ohio, in line to be next chair of the Congressional Black Caucus. Fudge: "It is a shame that anytime something goes wrong, they pick on women and minorities." And this by Fudge: "There is clear sexism and racism that goes with these comments" by McCain and Graham. Sorry Congresswoman, if you can't take the heat, don't hold political office. According to Fudge's "logic," only white males may be criticized. THAT is racist and sexist. It is also typical of the left's constant focus on race and sex. As we on the right know, criticism of Obama is likely to result in a charge of racism. It is divisive, and a child-like reaction to legitimate criticism. Let's not forget why they do it though; they believe that the ends (supporting the Obama Administration in this case) justify the means (lying about McCain and Graham being racists and sexists). And they know the mainstream media will never call them on it.