After then President Obama had clearly aligned himself with the Palestinians over Israel, but nevertheless still claimed to be a friend of Israel's, I wrote this: "No, if you were a true friend of Israel's Mr. Obama you would stop enabling the Palestinians' sense of victimhood and entitlement. You would tell them that there will never be a right of return for millions of descendants of the original refugees. You will tell them that Jerusalem will forever remain the undivided capital of Israel - and you will move the U.S. embassy there to prove that point. And you will tell them - no force them - to lay down their arms and recognize Israel as the sole Jewish state in the world. But...maybe you and I define friendship differently." (From the 6/7/15 post "Obama on Israel, Part II.) Now, President Trump, the greatest friend Israel has ever had in the White House, has done what I asked of Obama, and more.
The Trump peace plan envisions Israel keeping virtually all of Jerusalem as its capital. It gives no right of return to the descendants of Palestinian refugees. Israel gets to keep their "settlements" in the West Bank. Hamas and Islamic Jihad would have to disarm. And, to meet Israel's security concerns, Israel would retain control over the Jordan River Valley. And Israel must be recognized as the nation-state of the Jewish people. In exchange, the Palestinians get 70-80% of the West Bank, Gaza, and two additional areas of land out of Israel's Negev. If the Palestinians comply, they would receive $50 billion in economic aid.
Not surprisingly, the Palestinians immediately rejected the plan, as they have every other opportunity for peace. The mainstream media, and the Left generally, were highly critical of the plan. Notwithstanding their criticism, the New York Times editorial opined: "This could well be 'the last opportunity' for their own state that the Palestinians will ever have, as Mr. Trump warned, or at least the makings of the best deal they can expect." Bret Stephens, the anti-Trump but pro-Israel opinion writer at the New York Times, said: "The record of Arab-Israeli peace efforts can be summed up succinctly: Nearly every time the Arab side said no, it wound up with less." That, of course, is true. Had the Arabs accepted the UN partition plan of 1947, they would have had more territory than the Jews. However, they have chosen war after war after war.
The Arab League continues to be a huge disappointment, voting unanimously to reject the plan. Nothing has changed since the League met in Khartoum, Sudan following the 1967 Six Day War. Then, the League passed a resolution with "the three nos," - no peace with Israel, no recognition of Israel, no negotiations with Israel. If the Arab world will not join in pressuring the Palestinians to stop a hundred years of wars, then there is little hope that it will happen. In the meantime, the Palestinians continue to teach their school children to hate the Jews, and to encourage them to be martyrs. A Palestinian historian and archaeologist said this: "Jerusalem is the old walled city. The rest is not Jerusalem. We mean by Jerusalem - and I think everybody around the world means - the holy sites." Another Palestinian said: "Trump promised Jerusalem to the Jews. G-d promised it to us, and G-d is greater than Trump."
If control of Jerusalem is to be based on religious grounds, then bad news for the Arabs. G-d promised Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria (the West Bank territory) to the Jewish people long before there was an Al Aqsa Mosque or even Islam. When Jordan controlled the West Bank and Jerusalem between 1949 and 1967, Jewish holy sites were destroyed. Access to the Western Wall (the Kotel) was mostly denied. After Israel won the 1967 war and controlled Jerusalem, all religions have had access to their holy sites. Israel will never cede control of the Old City or Jerusalem, as it contains the holiest sites in Judaism.
Caroline Glick is an author and opinion writer, one of the best when it comes to analyzing events in the Middle East. She was an IDF (Israeli Defense Forces) captain and on Israel's negotiating team in 1995 for the Oslo Accords. Notwithstanding the Palestinians' agreement, Glick says: "Beginning with the PLO's failure to amend its covenant that called for Israel's destruction in nearly every paragraph; through their refusal to abide by the limits they had accepted on the number of weapons and security forces they were permitted to field in the areas under their security control; their continuous breaches of zoning and building laws and regulations; to their constant Nazi-like anti-Semitic propaganda and incitement and solicitation of terrorism against Israel - it was self-evident they were negotiating in bad faith. They didn't want peace with Israel. They were using the peace process to literally take Israel apart piece by piece."
Now along comes President Trump, who refuses to reward the Palestinians for their bad behavior, after having turned down offer after offer. Nevertheless, what the plan does offer the Palestinians is a state of their own. But the Palestinians have proven time after time that they have no interest in having their own state if it means that Israel will also continue to exist.
Rabbi Shmuley Boteach wrote an article that appeared in the weekly Jewish Journal of Los Angeles (January 24-30,2020 edition). Rabbi Boteach wrote something that I can definitely relate to: "...the more I stood up for Israel, especially through ads in the media, the more my liberal friends and admirers began to desert me." I, too, will continue to stand up for Israel, notwithstanding the hostility i get in return. As much as I would like for there to be true peace between the Jews and Arabs, I cannot ignore reality. And that reality tells me that the Arabs have chosen war over peace for 100 years. As that one Palestinian said, G-d is greater than Trump. I agree. As G-d promised all the land of Israel, including the West Bank, to the Jews, the Jews should keep it. Let the Palestinians lay down their arms, then maybe there will be something to talk about.
Sunday, February 2, 2020
The Democrats' Inability to Accept Defeat
It is really quite astonishing. To refer to Democrats as "sore losers" seems so inadequate. After all, they have never accepted the results of the 2016 election. That is why we have had the "resistance," attempted non-violent coup, the Mueller investigation and the sham impeachment proceedings. Just over one week ago, lead House Manager Adam Schiff said this: "The President's misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won." Schiff claimed for two years that he had hard evidence of Russian collusion. When Mueller disagreed, Schiff neither apologized nor came forward with his evidence. It appears that he believes the Russians will seek to interfere with the next election in order to re-elect Trump, which makes no sense as the Democrats overall are much weaker on foreign policy. So, what would Schiff do? Cancel the election? Simply declare the winner of the Democratic nomination to be president?
House Manager Jerry Nadler called Trump a "dictator." If Trump is a dictator, he is doing a pretty poor job of being one. The first thing a dictator does is shut down the press. Has Trump verbally attacked the "fake news" media? Sure. But I cannot think of another president in my lifetime who has been as vilified by the press as Trump. Are reporters being arrested and jailed? Is there press censorship? If Trump wants some lessons in mistreating the press he should speak with Obama. Obama and his aids repeatedly referred to Fox News as not being a legitimate news organization. Obama excluded Fox from certain press briefings. (Trump only kicked out Jim Acosta, not all of CNN.) Obama had federal investigators spy on reporters, and even their families. Think New York Times reporter James Risen, and Fox News reporter James Rosen, who was labeled a "criminal co-conspirator" for getting information from a state department contractor. Then there was the attack on AP (Associated Press) reporters whose phone records were obtained by the Feds. I won't even get into the use of the IRS to investigate and harass Tea Party members and other conservatives. Who acted as a dictator?
Nadler was not the only Democrat to claim that "the articles (of impeachment) are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence amassed by the House." So overwhelming that the Democrats insisted that they needed more witnesses to make their case? As it became clear that the Democrats were not going to get those additional witnesses (the Senate voted on Friday 51-49 against the calling of more witnesses), here is what some of them had to say. Senator Kamala Harris: "There will be no true acquittal if there is no fair trial." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer: "The president's acquittal will be meaningless, because it will be the result of a sham trial. If there are no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be a permanent asterisk next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink." That's a lot of permanent. (Although, I recall when Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth's single season home run record, there was indeed an asterisk next to his record, because when Maris played the season had 162 games and when the Babe played the season was only 154 games. Eventually, however, the Commissioner of baseball ordered the asterisk removed. I am not sure what record book the Trump asterisk will be in.)
Here is what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: "He (Trump) will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don't have a trial, and you don't have a trial if you don't have witnesses and documentation and that." Of course there were witnesses and there was documentation. The House Managers presented their evidence (the witnesses and documentation obtained in the House Committee hearings) to the Senate. What these Democrats are really saying is that they want "additional" witnesses. There is no requirement that there be additional witnesses. I have submitted cases for decision without the calling of live witnesses. Nothing unusual about that. If I felt that the record was adequately developed through reports and depositions, then I did not always feel the need for live testimony.
But we know what is really going on with these Democrats. As noted above, they cannot stand to lose. They lost in 2016 because Trump won in the Electoral College. Therefore, many Dems wanted to eliminate the Electoral College. Trump got to appoint two justices to the Supreme Court. Therefore, many Dems wanted to "pack the Court" by adding to the number of justices; which they may still do if they win the House and the Senate and the Presidency. It's simple, if the Dems lose it means they need to change the rules so that they never lose. Who is the threat to democracy? More than that even, they no longer believe that Americans should be able to decide who wins elections. After all, there are many of us who "cling to our guns and religion." Many of us are "deplorable." And if you did not see the clip of Don Lemon of CNN, along with his guests Rick Wilson and Wajahat Ali, brutally mocking Trump supporters, you should Google it. We are the "credulous boomer rubes." We cannot figure out "all those lines on the map."
The Democrats' ultimate goal was to remove Trump from office. After all, if Pence became President he would be a far less formidable candidate, not having the force of personality that Trump has. The Democrats are not blind to the size of the crowds that Trump is able to capture at his rallies. The Democrats understand that Trump's base has stayed with him. Attempting to remove Trump from office through a completely one-sided politically motivated impeachment does not offend the Democrats in the least. I have said it many times in past blog posts: the Democrats operate under the premise that the ends justify the means. They truly believe that they are the ones who deserve to rule over us. Therefore, any means to accomplish that goal are justified. Impeach the President. Eliminate the Electoral College. Pack the Supreme Court. So far, it has not worked. A president with a lesser strength of character would have crumbled under the constant attacks.
But the Dems are not done. Whether or not they pass new articles of impeachment in the House is an open question. If it does not happen before the election, I am confident that there will be tremendous pressure to do so in Trump's second term, should he win re-election. At a minimum, we will hear non-stop about a "cover-up." Somehow, the Senate relying on the "overwhelming" amount of evidence produced by the House, but still voting not to convict, will be deemed a "cover-up." And that tells us something else about the Dems - do not dare to disagree with them. If you do, they will not merely mock you and call you names, and accuse you of bad behavior such as a cover-up. They will seek to destroy you. (See multiple prior blog posts for examples. Think Chick fil-A, which the Dems are still trying to put out of business because the owner dared to say he believed in marriage being between a man and a woman.)
House Manager Jerry Nadler called Trump a "dictator." If Trump is a dictator, he is doing a pretty poor job of being one. The first thing a dictator does is shut down the press. Has Trump verbally attacked the "fake news" media? Sure. But I cannot think of another president in my lifetime who has been as vilified by the press as Trump. Are reporters being arrested and jailed? Is there press censorship? If Trump wants some lessons in mistreating the press he should speak with Obama. Obama and his aids repeatedly referred to Fox News as not being a legitimate news organization. Obama excluded Fox from certain press briefings. (Trump only kicked out Jim Acosta, not all of CNN.) Obama had federal investigators spy on reporters, and even their families. Think New York Times reporter James Risen, and Fox News reporter James Rosen, who was labeled a "criminal co-conspirator" for getting information from a state department contractor. Then there was the attack on AP (Associated Press) reporters whose phone records were obtained by the Feds. I won't even get into the use of the IRS to investigate and harass Tea Party members and other conservatives. Who acted as a dictator?
Nadler was not the only Democrat to claim that "the articles (of impeachment) are overwhelmingly supported by the evidence amassed by the House." So overwhelming that the Democrats insisted that they needed more witnesses to make their case? As it became clear that the Democrats were not going to get those additional witnesses (the Senate voted on Friday 51-49 against the calling of more witnesses), here is what some of them had to say. Senator Kamala Harris: "There will be no true acquittal if there is no fair trial." Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer: "The president's acquittal will be meaningless, because it will be the result of a sham trial. If there are no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be a permanent asterisk next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink." That's a lot of permanent. (Although, I recall when Roger Maris broke Babe Ruth's single season home run record, there was indeed an asterisk next to his record, because when Maris played the season had 162 games and when the Babe played the season was only 154 games. Eventually, however, the Commissioner of baseball ordered the asterisk removed. I am not sure what record book the Trump asterisk will be in.)
Here is what House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said: "He (Trump) will not be acquitted. You cannot be acquitted if you don't have a trial, and you don't have a trial if you don't have witnesses and documentation and that." Of course there were witnesses and there was documentation. The House Managers presented their evidence (the witnesses and documentation obtained in the House Committee hearings) to the Senate. What these Democrats are really saying is that they want "additional" witnesses. There is no requirement that there be additional witnesses. I have submitted cases for decision without the calling of live witnesses. Nothing unusual about that. If I felt that the record was adequately developed through reports and depositions, then I did not always feel the need for live testimony.
But we know what is really going on with these Democrats. As noted above, they cannot stand to lose. They lost in 2016 because Trump won in the Electoral College. Therefore, many Dems wanted to eliminate the Electoral College. Trump got to appoint two justices to the Supreme Court. Therefore, many Dems wanted to "pack the Court" by adding to the number of justices; which they may still do if they win the House and the Senate and the Presidency. It's simple, if the Dems lose it means they need to change the rules so that they never lose. Who is the threat to democracy? More than that even, they no longer believe that Americans should be able to decide who wins elections. After all, there are many of us who "cling to our guns and religion." Many of us are "deplorable." And if you did not see the clip of Don Lemon of CNN, along with his guests Rick Wilson and Wajahat Ali, brutally mocking Trump supporters, you should Google it. We are the "credulous boomer rubes." We cannot figure out "all those lines on the map."
The Democrats' ultimate goal was to remove Trump from office. After all, if Pence became President he would be a far less formidable candidate, not having the force of personality that Trump has. The Democrats are not blind to the size of the crowds that Trump is able to capture at his rallies. The Democrats understand that Trump's base has stayed with him. Attempting to remove Trump from office through a completely one-sided politically motivated impeachment does not offend the Democrats in the least. I have said it many times in past blog posts: the Democrats operate under the premise that the ends justify the means. They truly believe that they are the ones who deserve to rule over us. Therefore, any means to accomplish that goal are justified. Impeach the President. Eliminate the Electoral College. Pack the Supreme Court. So far, it has not worked. A president with a lesser strength of character would have crumbled under the constant attacks.
But the Dems are not done. Whether or not they pass new articles of impeachment in the House is an open question. If it does not happen before the election, I am confident that there will be tremendous pressure to do so in Trump's second term, should he win re-election. At a minimum, we will hear non-stop about a "cover-up." Somehow, the Senate relying on the "overwhelming" amount of evidence produced by the House, but still voting not to convict, will be deemed a "cover-up." And that tells us something else about the Dems - do not dare to disagree with them. If you do, they will not merely mock you and call you names, and accuse you of bad behavior such as a cover-up. They will seek to destroy you. (See multiple prior blog posts for examples. Think Chick fil-A, which the Dems are still trying to put out of business because the owner dared to say he believed in marriage being between a man and a woman.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)