The following Democrats have announced that they will not attend next week's speech in Congress by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. In the House: Earl Blumenauer, Oregon; G.K. Butterfield, N.C.; Andre Carson, Ind.; James Clyburn, S.C.; Steve Cohen, Tenn.; Peter DeFazio, Oregon; Diana DeGette, Colo.; Donna Edwards, Md.; Keith Ellison, Minn.; Raul Grijalva, Ariz., Luis Gutierrez, Ill.; Eleanor Holmes Norton, D.C.; Eddie Bernice Johnson, Tex.; Barbara Lee, Cal.; John Lewis, Ga.; Betty McCollum, Minn.; Jim McDermott, Wash.; Gregory Meeks, N.Y.; Beto O'Rourke, Tex.; Chellie Pingree Maine; Charles Rangel, N.Y.; Cedric Richmond, La.; Jan Schakowsky, Ill.; Bennie Thompson, Miss.; John Yarmuth, Ky.; and Danny Davis, Ill.
That is a total of 26 House members to date who have said they will not attend. Included in the group is the head of the Congressional Black Caucus, Butterfield. Also in the group is Keith Ellison, the first Muslim elected to Congress, and the head of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. (I doubt many rank and file Dems are even aware of that group or its ties to far left and socialist groups.)
And of the Jewish members not attending, Steve Cohen had this to say: "After deliberation, I have decided I cannot in good conscience attend the Prime Minister's speech." If the interests of the United States conflicted with the interests of Israel, I could understand such a comment. After all, Cohen is a United States Representative, not an official of Israel. But here, the interests of the US and Israel are the same; the only conflict is with a President determined to endanger this country, Israel and the world by allowing Iran nuclear capability.
In addition to the 26 Representatives, 4 Senators have announced they will not attend: Tim Kaine, Va.; Patrick Leahy, Vt.; Bernie Sanders, Vt.; and Brian Schatz, Hw. A total to date of 30 Democrats who refuse to hear the Israeli Prime Minister speak. These people, and undoubtedly many other liberal Democrats in Congress, prefer to side with Obama rather than concern themselves with the terms of the deal Obama is about to enter into with Iran. I hope my fellow Jews who remain loyal to the Democrat party are proud.
National Security Adviser Susan Rice was rather blunt in expressing the Obama Administration's feelings about the Netanyahu speech. She stated that the Israeli Prime Minister's visit "injected a degree of partisanship which is not only unfortunate, I think it's destructive of the fabric of the relationship."
"Destructive of the fabric of the relationship." Obama will meet with the terrorist leaders of Iran, the dictatorial Castro brothers of Cuba, but boy, if you disagree with him - watch out! Adding insult to injury, Obama is giving Cuba and Iran what they want, while he tells Israel to commit suicide by establishing another terrorist state on its borders. There is nothing left that I can say to my fellow Jews who will remain Democrats, other than - I don't want to get on that train with you.
Secretary of State John Kerry, in reference to the war between Ukraine and Russia, recently said this: "Russia is engaged in a rather remarkable period of the most overt and extensive propaganda exercise that I've seen since the very height of the Cold War. And they have been persisting in their misrepresentations - lies- whatever you want to call them about their activities there to my face, to the face of others on many different occasions."
And I thought he might have been referring to the Iranians.
Thursday, February 26, 2015
Letter to the Editor
In a letter to the editor in the 2/13/15 edition of a local newspaper (The Ventura County Star), a writer who identified herself as a Jew expressed her "disgust" in Benjamin Netanyahu's "total disregard for proper etiquette" by accepting Speaker Boehner's invitation to speak to a joint session of Congress. The writer revealed her true colors when she added that Netanyahu's behavior in accepting the invitation was "unfortunately typical of him and his party." Another liberal Jew who puts her party ahead of the survival of Israel.
I then wrote a reply to her letter, which the Star published on 2/19/15. My reply follows; however, I have replaced the writer's name with an "X."
Letter to the Editor:
As a fellow Jew, it was with great disappointment that I read Ms. X's letter expressing her "disgust" for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's alleged disregard for proper etiquette. Does Ms. X believe the White House spin that the Netanyahu speech is about a breach of protocol? President Obama has never cared about protocol.
His first speech was in 2009 from Cairo to the Muslim world. There he was in Egypt, a guest of then President Hosni Mubarek, and Obama invited members of the outlawed terrorist group, the Muslim Botherhood, to come hear him speak. It was such a breach of protocol and slap in the face to Mubarek, that Mubarek was furious and refused to attend the speech. Were you equally "disgusted" by President Obama's actions? I could give more examples if space permitted.
The underlying issue remains that the deal proposed by President Obama will allow Iran to maintain nuclear capability. If Iran chooses to do so, they could violate the terms of the deal and obtain nuclear weapons within a matter of months. Iranian leaders regularly threaten to wipe Israel off the map. While such weapons would be a threat to the U.S., they would constitute an existential threat to the State of Israel. So, I would also ask Ms. X, is she also "disgusted" by the idea of the Ayatollahs possessing nukes?
Netanyahu is acting in the finest tradition of Rabbi Hillel, who famously said: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me...and if not now, when?"
Jews are increasingly under attack around the world. Yesterday in Copenhagen we saw yet another example. I would hope that the words of another famous quote still have meaning to you: "Never Again!"
I then wrote a reply to her letter, which the Star published on 2/19/15. My reply follows; however, I have replaced the writer's name with an "X."
Letter to the Editor:
As a fellow Jew, it was with great disappointment that I read Ms. X's letter expressing her "disgust" for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's alleged disregard for proper etiquette. Does Ms. X believe the White House spin that the Netanyahu speech is about a breach of protocol? President Obama has never cared about protocol.
His first speech was in 2009 from Cairo to the Muslim world. There he was in Egypt, a guest of then President Hosni Mubarek, and Obama invited members of the outlawed terrorist group, the Muslim Botherhood, to come hear him speak. It was such a breach of protocol and slap in the face to Mubarek, that Mubarek was furious and refused to attend the speech. Were you equally "disgusted" by President Obama's actions? I could give more examples if space permitted.
The underlying issue remains that the deal proposed by President Obama will allow Iran to maintain nuclear capability. If Iran chooses to do so, they could violate the terms of the deal and obtain nuclear weapons within a matter of months. Iranian leaders regularly threaten to wipe Israel off the map. While such weapons would be a threat to the U.S., they would constitute an existential threat to the State of Israel. So, I would also ask Ms. X, is she also "disgusted" by the idea of the Ayatollahs possessing nukes?
Netanyahu is acting in the finest tradition of Rabbi Hillel, who famously said: "If I am not for myself, who will be for me...and if not now, when?"
Jews are increasingly under attack around the world. Yesterday in Copenhagen we saw yet another example. I would hope that the words of another famous quote still have meaning to you: "Never Again!"
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Does Obama Love America?
Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani has taken some heat for his comment saying "I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the President loves America."
Not surprisingly, we had the feigned reactions of shock from the democrats. Josh Earnest, W.H. spokesperson, said he felt "sorry" for Rudy, having tarnished his legacy with such a comment. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, head of the DNC, said "We can disagree on issues, but when GOPers stay silent while one of their own questions the President's patriotism, we have a real problem." These comments are pure political nonsense; much like the feigned shock over Netanyahu accepting Boehner's invitation to speak to Congress.
Giuliani's comments were those of a private citizen. He holds no elected office. But Joe Biden, as Vice President, told a black audience that "He (Romney) is going to put y'all back in chains." And Harry Reid, as Senate Majority leader, said from the Senate floor: "So the word is out that he (Romney) has not paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove he has paid taxes, because he has not." So the democrats could accuse a presidential candidate of supporting slavery (a horrific practice) and income tax evasion (a crime) - and just where was the outcry by other democrats when their highest office holders said such things? Please...
Now that we have dispensed with the political nonsense, the underlying issue remains - does Obama love America? We could look at his own words and background to gain some insight on this issue. As a candidate in 2008 he said that he wanted to bring "fundamental change" to this country. Five days before the election he said he would "fundamentally transform" America. So, one could reasonably ask why the need for "fundamental" change/transformation of something that you love, as opposed to "improvement." One might ask why his wife said in 2008 that "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country..."
One might question why he stayed at a church where the Reverend said not G-d bless America but "G-d damn America." Or why Obama said people in small towns "get bitter" and "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment."
However, there is a far larger issue of Obama not respecting our underlying system of limited government, with the supremacy of the individual based upon certain G-d given rights, and with a system of checks and balances in order to prevent any particular branch of government from becoming too powerful. But Obama says when Congress will not write legislation he will, as he recently did with his immigration policy. Only he does not have the power to write legislation, only Congress does.
Our country was also founded on the notion of "free enterprise." Capitalism. But Obama does not believe in that either. He does not believe in individual opportunity and success. In fact, he has constantly criticized those who have succeeded - the millionaires and billionaires. He told us that "if you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
As for the Constitution's Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, Obama sees it as defective. Obama in 2001 said that the Constitution "says what the States can't do to you...what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government must do on your behalf." So much for the concept of "rugged individualism." So much for John Kennedy's idea of "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Obama wanted the Constitution to provide for new "economic rights" and complained about the "essential constraints" on doing so by the language in the Constitution. Obama also complained about the Courts being bound by tradition and precedent, interfering with their ability "to bring about significant redistributional change."
So the real question might not be whether or not Obama loves America. The real question is what vision of America might Obama love? Certainly not the one created by our Founders. Which brings us to an even larger issue - how many Americans have the left and Obama persuaded to share their vision of America? We have numerous members of Congress currently who do not believe in the Founders' America. Rather, they share Obama's vision of a different, fundamentally transformed America. As I have said before, many in the democrat party remain completely unaware of how far left Obama and others have taken their party from the days of John Kennedy. These same individuals will continue to vote democrat, often unaware of what policies they are voting for, but believing all the demagogic lies about republicans.
A footnote. I have often addressed the topic of the political divide in this country. For newer readers of the blog who are interested in this topic you might want to take a look at these earlier posts: 8/2/12, "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat;" 8/30/12, "Why the Democrats Hate Republicans, But Feel So Good About Themselves;" 1/18/14, "Republicans Vote Their Values, Democrats Are Driven by Issues;" and 2/23/14, "We Are Going to Fundamentally Change America."
Not surprisingly, we had the feigned reactions of shock from the democrats. Josh Earnest, W.H. spokesperson, said he felt "sorry" for Rudy, having tarnished his legacy with such a comment. Debbie Wasserman Schultz, head of the DNC, said "We can disagree on issues, but when GOPers stay silent while one of their own questions the President's patriotism, we have a real problem." These comments are pure political nonsense; much like the feigned shock over Netanyahu accepting Boehner's invitation to speak to Congress.
Giuliani's comments were those of a private citizen. He holds no elected office. But Joe Biden, as Vice President, told a black audience that "He (Romney) is going to put y'all back in chains." And Harry Reid, as Senate Majority leader, said from the Senate floor: "So the word is out that he (Romney) has not paid any taxes for 10 years. Let him prove he has paid taxes, because he has not." So the democrats could accuse a presidential candidate of supporting slavery (a horrific practice) and income tax evasion (a crime) - and just where was the outcry by other democrats when their highest office holders said such things? Please...
Now that we have dispensed with the political nonsense, the underlying issue remains - does Obama love America? We could look at his own words and background to gain some insight on this issue. As a candidate in 2008 he said that he wanted to bring "fundamental change" to this country. Five days before the election he said he would "fundamentally transform" America. So, one could reasonably ask why the need for "fundamental" change/transformation of something that you love, as opposed to "improvement." One might ask why his wife said in 2008 that "for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country..."
One might question why he stayed at a church where the Reverend said not G-d bless America but "G-d damn America." Or why Obama said people in small towns "get bitter" and "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment."
However, there is a far larger issue of Obama not respecting our underlying system of limited government, with the supremacy of the individual based upon certain G-d given rights, and with a system of checks and balances in order to prevent any particular branch of government from becoming too powerful. But Obama says when Congress will not write legislation he will, as he recently did with his immigration policy. Only he does not have the power to write legislation, only Congress does.
Our country was also founded on the notion of "free enterprise." Capitalism. But Obama does not believe in that either. He does not believe in individual opportunity and success. In fact, he has constantly criticized those who have succeeded - the millionaires and billionaires. He told us that "if you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen."
As for the Constitution's Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments, Obama sees it as defective. Obama in 2001 said that the Constitution "says what the States can't do to you...what the Federal government can't do to you, but doesn't say what the Federal government must do on your behalf." So much for the concept of "rugged individualism." So much for John Kennedy's idea of "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country."
Obama wanted the Constitution to provide for new "economic rights" and complained about the "essential constraints" on doing so by the language in the Constitution. Obama also complained about the Courts being bound by tradition and precedent, interfering with their ability "to bring about significant redistributional change."
So the real question might not be whether or not Obama loves America. The real question is what vision of America might Obama love? Certainly not the one created by our Founders. Which brings us to an even larger issue - how many Americans have the left and Obama persuaded to share their vision of America? We have numerous members of Congress currently who do not believe in the Founders' America. Rather, they share Obama's vision of a different, fundamentally transformed America. As I have said before, many in the democrat party remain completely unaware of how far left Obama and others have taken their party from the days of John Kennedy. These same individuals will continue to vote democrat, often unaware of what policies they are voting for, but believing all the demagogic lies about republicans.
A footnote. I have often addressed the topic of the political divide in this country. For newer readers of the blog who are interested in this topic you might want to take a look at these earlier posts: 8/2/12, "Why I Am No Longer a Democrat;" 8/30/12, "Why the Democrats Hate Republicans, But Feel So Good About Themselves;" 1/18/14, "Republicans Vote Their Values, Democrats Are Driven by Issues;" and 2/23/14, "We Are Going to Fundamentally Change America."
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
In Their Own Words, Part II
During that same Vox interview referred to in Part I, Obama was asked if the media sometimes overstates the level of alarm people should have about terrorism? Said Obama: "Absolutely." Incredibly, Obama equated the fight with ISIS to "a big city mayor (who has) to cut the crime rate down if he wants that city to thrive." Now I've got it. Yes, just like FDR and General Eisenhower during WWII deciding they needed to "degrade" the Nazis.
I can just imagine Obama being President during WWII telling the media that they are overstating the threat. ISIS controls one-third of Syria and Iraq. Libya is a failed state and is where the Coptic Christians were murdered. Yemen is a failed state, with both Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS elements. Somalia is a failed state. ISIS and Al-Qaeda are in the Egyptian Sinai. ISIS is now threatening Italy and Rome. What's the problem?
Marie Harf, spokesperson at the State Department, actually said this: "We cannot kill our way out of this war (with ISIS). We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it's lack of opportunity for jobs, whether..." At that point, apparently even Chris Matthews could not take it and said to her: "We're not going to be able to stop that in our lifetime or fifty lifetimes. There's always going to be poor people."
However, in true Marxist fashion, Ms. Harf was attempting to explain that all human behavior flows from economics. Whereas those of us on the right understand that the radical Muslims are driven by ideology, Ms. Harf does not. The Communists and Nazis? Ideology driven. But even if Ms. Harf was right, what has 50 years of fighting the war on poverty with billions of dollars accomplished in this country? More people dependent on government. Besides, as Matthews said, we have always had poor people in the world. We have always had displaced people. But only those who justify their actions with Islam are committing the atrocities today.
When ISIS held a captured Jordanian pilot, they offered an exchange for a convicted terrorist being held in a Jordanian prison. Except that the Jordanian pilot had already been burned alive. When Jordan's King Abdullah found out he immediately had the convicted terrorist executed. And these words came from the Jordanian leadership, promising a "strong, earth-shaking and decisive" response; which indeed was followed by airstrikes on ISIS targets. And this: "The revenge will be as big as the calamity that has hit Jordan." I don't know about you, but I miss having a President who could speak with such passion about evil. Instead, Obama tells us we are overstating the threat.
"Application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world." So said former Iranian President Rafsanjani. Some of the Ayatollahs have made similar comments. Yet Obama is dead set on giving Iran nuclear capability, all in exchange for their promise to help bring stability to the Middle East. That is what I would refer to as insanity.
On February 12, 2015, the New York Times had this headline on the first page above the fold: "Chapel Hill Shooting Leaves 3 Muslims Dead." Sadly, some lunatic killed three young people - Muslims - who lived in the same complex as he did. The police indicated that there was a long running dispute over a parking space. It was a tragic murder. Why do I bring this up? In the 5/27/13 edition of the NY Times, there was a lengthy article about rioting in Sweden and other European cities. The headline failed to mention that the rioters in every city were Muslims. In fact, in the entire lengthy article, you would not find the word "Muslim" or "Islam." (See my 6/6/13 post entitled "Are We At War With Islam?...Part IV.) You see, the NY Times will only mention Muslims as victims, never as perpetrators. Just like Obama.
In explaining why, notwithstanding all the controversy, he is coming to speak to Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this: "I'm going to Washington because as Prime Minister of Israel, it's my obligation to do everything in my power to prevent the conclusion of a bad deal (with Iran) that could threaten the survival of the State of Israel." And he said this: "The survival of Israel is not a partisan issue." Sadly, it is for Obama and many Democrats who are threatening to boycott the speech. And he said this: "I think the pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran is the most urgent security challenge facing the world." I wish that our President spoke with such moral clarity.
And for those of you not keeping with what Jewish students on American college campuses have to put up with, here is a small sampling: "With Jews we lose." A refrain heard in student body elections. "Kill the Jews." "Hitler was right." "The best Jew is a dead Jew." In addition to these hateful comments, Jewish students suffer real intimidation and even physical assault. Of course, most of this behavior comes from Muslim students. Again, this occurs on American college campuses. Think the problem is just in Europe and the Middle East?
Arab leaders in Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority and elsewhere are calling for investigation into the killing of the 3 Muslim students as a hate crime. In fact, they are already referring to it as an act of terror. And Obama is obliging them by having his Justice Department start a federal investigation. Ironic, is it not, that these same Arab leaders are silent on the beheadings of the Coptic Christians and the murder of Jews at the kosher Deli in Paris. Curiously, Obama also does not refer to the Jews or Christians. Hmmm.
I can just imagine Obama being President during WWII telling the media that they are overstating the threat. ISIS controls one-third of Syria and Iraq. Libya is a failed state and is where the Coptic Christians were murdered. Yemen is a failed state, with both Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and ISIS elements. Somalia is a failed state. ISIS and Al-Qaeda are in the Egyptian Sinai. ISIS is now threatening Italy and Rome. What's the problem?
Marie Harf, spokesperson at the State Department, actually said this: "We cannot kill our way out of this war (with ISIS). We need in the medium to longer term to go after the root causes that leads people to join these groups, whether it's lack of opportunity for jobs, whether..." At that point, apparently even Chris Matthews could not take it and said to her: "We're not going to be able to stop that in our lifetime or fifty lifetimes. There's always going to be poor people."
However, in true Marxist fashion, Ms. Harf was attempting to explain that all human behavior flows from economics. Whereas those of us on the right understand that the radical Muslims are driven by ideology, Ms. Harf does not. The Communists and Nazis? Ideology driven. But even if Ms. Harf was right, what has 50 years of fighting the war on poverty with billions of dollars accomplished in this country? More people dependent on government. Besides, as Matthews said, we have always had poor people in the world. We have always had displaced people. But only those who justify their actions with Islam are committing the atrocities today.
When ISIS held a captured Jordanian pilot, they offered an exchange for a convicted terrorist being held in a Jordanian prison. Except that the Jordanian pilot had already been burned alive. When Jordan's King Abdullah found out he immediately had the convicted terrorist executed. And these words came from the Jordanian leadership, promising a "strong, earth-shaking and decisive" response; which indeed was followed by airstrikes on ISIS targets. And this: "The revenge will be as big as the calamity that has hit Jordan." I don't know about you, but I miss having a President who could speak with such passion about evil. Instead, Obama tells us we are overstating the threat.
"Application of an atomic bomb would not leave anything in Israel but the same thing would just produce damages in the Muslim world." So said former Iranian President Rafsanjani. Some of the Ayatollahs have made similar comments. Yet Obama is dead set on giving Iran nuclear capability, all in exchange for their promise to help bring stability to the Middle East. That is what I would refer to as insanity.
On February 12, 2015, the New York Times had this headline on the first page above the fold: "Chapel Hill Shooting Leaves 3 Muslims Dead." Sadly, some lunatic killed three young people - Muslims - who lived in the same complex as he did. The police indicated that there was a long running dispute over a parking space. It was a tragic murder. Why do I bring this up? In the 5/27/13 edition of the NY Times, there was a lengthy article about rioting in Sweden and other European cities. The headline failed to mention that the rioters in every city were Muslims. In fact, in the entire lengthy article, you would not find the word "Muslim" or "Islam." (See my 6/6/13 post entitled "Are We At War With Islam?...Part IV.) You see, the NY Times will only mention Muslims as victims, never as perpetrators. Just like Obama.
In explaining why, notwithstanding all the controversy, he is coming to speak to Congress, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said this: "I'm going to Washington because as Prime Minister of Israel, it's my obligation to do everything in my power to prevent the conclusion of a bad deal (with Iran) that could threaten the survival of the State of Israel." And he said this: "The survival of Israel is not a partisan issue." Sadly, it is for Obama and many Democrats who are threatening to boycott the speech. And he said this: "I think the pursuit of nuclear weapons by Iran is the most urgent security challenge facing the world." I wish that our President spoke with such moral clarity.
And for those of you not keeping with what Jewish students on American college campuses have to put up with, here is a small sampling: "With Jews we lose." A refrain heard in student body elections. "Kill the Jews." "Hitler was right." "The best Jew is a dead Jew." In addition to these hateful comments, Jewish students suffer real intimidation and even physical assault. Of course, most of this behavior comes from Muslim students. Again, this occurs on American college campuses. Think the problem is just in Europe and the Middle East?
Arab leaders in Saudi Arabia and the Palestinian Authority and elsewhere are calling for investigation into the killing of the 3 Muslim students as a hate crime. In fact, they are already referring to it as an act of terror. And Obama is obliging them by having his Justice Department start a federal investigation. Ironic, is it not, that these same Arab leaders are silent on the beheadings of the Coptic Christians and the murder of Jews at the kosher Deli in Paris. Curiously, Obama also does not refer to the Jews or Christians. Hmmm.
In Their Own Words, Part I
At the National Prayer Breakfast earlier this month President Obama said this: "And lest we get on our high horse and think this (referring to radical Islam, which he calls violent extremism) is unique to some other place, remember that during the Crusades and the Inquisition, people committed terrible deeds in the name of Christ...So this is not unique to one group or one religion." Now, assuming that a comparison can even be made to the Crusades - that was 800 years ago! Are the Crusades a problem today? This type of moronic comment simply provides a subtle explanation and even justification for the outrageous behavior of ISIS. Obama should be ashamed of himself.
Obama on Vox after the Paris massacre: "It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you have a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shot a bunch of folks in a Deli in Paris." What? No, nothing random about it. The target was a kosher Jewish Deli - and the four who were murdered were Jews. But Obama has an issue with Jews being the victims of radical Muslims (another phrase he cannot bring himself to utter). We already know that these violent zealots are all "randomly" Muslim. Obama has gotten away with so many lies, it is hard to blame him for thinking that he can get away with even the most absurd ones.
Subsequently, White House Press Secretary/Liar for the President, had this to say: the kosher Deli victims were "killed not because of who they were, but because of where they randomly happened to be." Earnest and the spokesliars at the State Department make me very concerned about the future of this country. If any of them had integrity they would resign before spewing the nonsense that they do. Question for Earnest: Did the murderer "randomly" target a kosher Jewish Deli? Or, as happens many times, was a radical Muslim targeting Jews?
At his January State of the Union address, Obama said: "Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well?" Yes! Why not? If everyone did spectacularly well, then no one is doing so - because everyone would be doing equally well. Which, of course, is the true goal of all socialists. Except with socialism, everyone ends up doing equally poorly.
Also at the State of the Union, Obama said this: "And I commit to every Republican here tonight that I will not only seek out your ideas, I will seek to work with you to make this country stronger." It is truly amazing to me how many people believe this lie. In six years Obama has shown no interest in working with Republicans. He rarely invited the Congressional Republican leadership to the White House. He is not like Reagan, who worked with Democrat Speaker Tip O'Neill to get things done; or like Bill Clinton who worked with Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich. No, Obama is a pure ideologue, and the above quote was all for political show.
David Axelrod, former political adviser and campaign manager for Obama, said in his new book "Believer": If Mr. Obama's views were "evolving" publicly (regarding gay marriage), "they were fully evolved behind closed doors." Spoiler alert: What? Obama lied in 2008 when he claimed that as a Christian he opposed gay marriage? Shocking!
Josh Earnest, following the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians by ISIS, said this: "The United States condemns the despicable and cowardly murder of twenty-one Egyptian citizens in Libya by ISIL-affiliated terrorists." I guess Christians cannot be the victims of these "random" Muslim terrorists either. Then again, Obama has expressed no concern for the one million Christians displaced from Muslim-run Arab countries over the last decade. That would be more than the number of Arabs (now calling themselves "Palestinians") who were displaced from their homes during the Arabs first effort to wipe Israel off the map back in 1948-49. But Obama cares a great deal about those people.
Obama on Vox after the Paris massacre: "It is entirely legitimate for the American people to be deeply concerned when you have a bunch of violent, vicious zealots who behead people or randomly shot a bunch of folks in a Deli in Paris." What? No, nothing random about it. The target was a kosher Jewish Deli - and the four who were murdered were Jews. But Obama has an issue with Jews being the victims of radical Muslims (another phrase he cannot bring himself to utter). We already know that these violent zealots are all "randomly" Muslim. Obama has gotten away with so many lies, it is hard to blame him for thinking that he can get away with even the most absurd ones.
Subsequently, White House Press Secretary/Liar for the President, had this to say: the kosher Deli victims were "killed not because of who they were, but because of where they randomly happened to be." Earnest and the spokesliars at the State Department make me very concerned about the future of this country. If any of them had integrity they would resign before spewing the nonsense that they do. Question for Earnest: Did the murderer "randomly" target a kosher Jewish Deli? Or, as happens many times, was a radical Muslim targeting Jews?
At his January State of the Union address, Obama said: "Will we accept an economy where only a few of us do spectacularly well?" Yes! Why not? If everyone did spectacularly well, then no one is doing so - because everyone would be doing equally well. Which, of course, is the true goal of all socialists. Except with socialism, everyone ends up doing equally poorly.
Also at the State of the Union, Obama said this: "And I commit to every Republican here tonight that I will not only seek out your ideas, I will seek to work with you to make this country stronger." It is truly amazing to me how many people believe this lie. In six years Obama has shown no interest in working with Republicans. He rarely invited the Congressional Republican leadership to the White House. He is not like Reagan, who worked with Democrat Speaker Tip O'Neill to get things done; or like Bill Clinton who worked with Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich. No, Obama is a pure ideologue, and the above quote was all for political show.
David Axelrod, former political adviser and campaign manager for Obama, said in his new book "Believer": If Mr. Obama's views were "evolving" publicly (regarding gay marriage), "they were fully evolved behind closed doors." Spoiler alert: What? Obama lied in 2008 when he claimed that as a Christian he opposed gay marriage? Shocking!
Josh Earnest, following the beheading of 21 Coptic Christians by ISIS, said this: "The United States condemns the despicable and cowardly murder of twenty-one Egyptian citizens in Libya by ISIL-affiliated terrorists." I guess Christians cannot be the victims of these "random" Muslim terrorists either. Then again, Obama has expressed no concern for the one million Christians displaced from Muslim-run Arab countries over the last decade. That would be more than the number of Arabs (now calling themselves "Palestinians") who were displaced from their homes during the Arabs first effort to wipe Israel off the map back in 1948-49. But Obama cares a great deal about those people.
Monday, February 9, 2015
Dr. Berenbaum Replies
Following the posting of yesterday's email exchange between myself and Dr. Michael Berenbaum, I advised him that if he wished to reply to me further I would post his reply and give him the last word. So here it is.
You did not address several issues:
Sanctions is a false issue. They are generally not particularly effective. They require cooperation from Allies and in this case, if the US changes the negotiations midway, then they can expect little to no cooperation from Allies and the ultimate sanction is the price of oil, which is costing Iran dearly and also taking down Russia and Venezuela. Russia will certainly not cooperate on sanctions.
The Corker proposal is far more effective, giving the Senate a veto over the agreement if there is one and thus forcing the administration to get a tougher agreement.
The Prime Minister wants sanctions as a tool to blow up the possibility of an agreement — at least that is the diagnosis of the Mossad, which called the Congressional Bill, a hand grenade on the negotiations, at least before they backed down the remark.
Presuming for a moment that military action is required, that decision can only be made by the President of the United States, who is also the only one who can offer Israel political support in the UN and elsewhere. Alienating the President — any President — is not a wise idea. Using the rostrum of the House of Representatives as a Foreign leader to attack the President is downright unpatriotic. If it succeeds, it weakens the President who must be strong to pursue military action or to carry a heavy load diplomatically. If it fails, it makes the Speaker and his supporters as well as the Prime Minister look weak.
What happened is clear to me. The Ambassador thought like a Republican political operative. The Prime Minister thought of reelection, The Speaker thought as to how to fight the President and some partisan right wing Jews thought of this as a tool to wow the Jews or at least Jewish financial support away from the Democratic Party. They have succeeded in making support for Israel — now defined as support for Netanyahu two weeks before an election campaign — far more partisan that it ever was.
It would take me too long to write another piece on the Iran negotiations. They may die of their own weight. But even military action will at best slow down the nuclear development, not end it. That was the decision of the assessment of Israel's security apparatus.
Michael Berenbaum
You did not address several issues:
Sanctions is a false issue. They are generally not particularly effective. They require cooperation from Allies and in this case, if the US changes the negotiations midway, then they can expect little to no cooperation from Allies and the ultimate sanction is the price of oil, which is costing Iran dearly and also taking down Russia and Venezuela. Russia will certainly not cooperate on sanctions.
The Corker proposal is far more effective, giving the Senate a veto over the agreement if there is one and thus forcing the administration to get a tougher agreement.
The Prime Minister wants sanctions as a tool to blow up the possibility of an agreement — at least that is the diagnosis of the Mossad, which called the Congressional Bill, a hand grenade on the negotiations, at least before they backed down the remark.
Presuming for a moment that military action is required, that decision can only be made by the President of the United States, who is also the only one who can offer Israel political support in the UN and elsewhere. Alienating the President — any President — is not a wise idea. Using the rostrum of the House of Representatives as a Foreign leader to attack the President is downright unpatriotic. If it succeeds, it weakens the President who must be strong to pursue military action or to carry a heavy load diplomatically. If it fails, it makes the Speaker and his supporters as well as the Prime Minister look weak.
What happened is clear to me. The Ambassador thought like a Republican political operative. The Prime Minister thought of reelection, The Speaker thought as to how to fight the President and some partisan right wing Jews thought of this as a tool to wow the Jews or at least Jewish financial support away from the Democratic Party. They have succeeded in making support for Israel — now defined as support for Netanyahu two weeks before an election campaign — far more partisan that it ever was.
It would take me too long to write another piece on the Iran negotiations. They may die of their own weight. But even military action will at best slow down the nuclear development, not end it. That was the decision of the assessment of Israel's security apparatus.
Michael Berenbaum
Sunday, February 8, 2015
An Email Exchange on Iranian Nukes and Netanyahu's Visit
A recent edition of the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles had pro and con arguments regarding the upcoming visit of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who was invited to speak before a joint session of Congress. On the "con" side was Dr. Michael Berenbaum, a Holocaust scholar. As I was rather disappointed and upset with the position he took I emailed him and expressed my surprise. He in turn replied, and attached an article he had written in 2012 concerning what to do about Iran getting nukes. Today, I replied again to him. If you start at the bottom you will find my initial email, then his reply and article, and finally my reply of today. It is somewhat lengthy because I attached his article as well. I previously wrote two posts on the issue of Iranian nukes, as noted in the paragraph below.
Dear Mr. Berenbaum, Thank you for your reply. I read the article that you had written about Iranian nukes, and except for a couple of the political comments at the end I find no basis for disagreement. It is well-balanced and thoughtful. I too have been writing about the issue for some time. I have been writing my blog for six years and on 11/26/09 I wrote a post entitled "Iranian Nukes." On 2/21/10 I wrote "Iranian Nukes, Part II." Again, the blog is at: http://www.truth-uncensored.blogspot.com
All the posts are there and if you scroll back you will find them. You will note that my original position was faulting Bush for not insisting on an alliance with Britain, France and Germany in order to launch an aerial assault taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities when it was clear Iran had no interest in negotiations. For over a decade they have feigned interest, all the while building up their nuclear facilities. Had Bush taken care of it at the time, Iran's facilities were much less in number and less spread out around the country.
I also agree that Netanyahu has no good choices. If he does nothing, he risks that the Ayatollahs will do as promised and nuke Israel. A couple of well placed nukes would devastate the country and possibly kill millions. Some of the Ayatollahs and one prior president of Iran have already said that their country is large enough to absorb any nuclear retaliation by Israel. You ask if the Ayatollahs are rational. You ask if they would risk tens of millions being killed. How many fanatics has history shown us that do not care about that at all - Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and on and on. If Israel does attack, I totally agree that we can expect worldwide attacks on Jewish institutions and people. And, as you noted, the attack may not even accomplish much.
So Netanyahu clearly realizes his limitations, and has been trying to get the West to take out the Iranian nukes; and now, trying to prevent a deal that will allow Iran to get nukes in a matter of a few months if they choose to abrogate any negotiated deal. And now it comes out that, in return, Obama is asking that Iran help maintain stability throughout the Middle East. So, here is where we part company, perhaps. Obama wants to bring his fundamental change to the world order - and in almost every instance supports the wrong side of a dispute.
Who in their right mind thinks Iran will be a force for stability. You are right - Netanyahu is talking and has been talking to try to wake the West up to the threat. So here we are negotiating in Munich - just like in 1938. And when Hitler decided he was not bound by that deal - WWII. How long will it take Iran to decide they are not bound by this deal?
As for the breach of protocol, that is pure nonsense. Recall Obama's first speech was to the Muslim world out of Cairo. There he was in Egypt, a guest of then President Hosni Mubarek, and what does Obama do? He invites members of the outlawed terrorist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, to come to his speech. Talk about a breach of protocol. Mubarek was furious and did not attend the speech. So Obama has never cared about protocol (I could give other examples) from day one. No, this entire dust-up is because Obama sees the Iranian deal as his major foreign policy achievement - and, as always, will tolerate no dissent. And I know we disagree on this - but I do not believe Obama would lose one minute of sleep if Israel were wiped off the map. In virtually every instance he has aligned himself with the Muslims, including the most radical ones.
And Obama has already indicated he does not intend to get Senate approval of any deal, reflecting yet again his total contempt for Congress, the separation of powers, and the Constitution. I just do not understand your statement that Netanyahu has only one goal - his reelection. Are you saying he does not care about the survival of Israel and the Jewish people? It seems inconsistent with your comment about Netanyahu talking about, and warning of, the danger for years. Why has he done that? Just to get reelected each time? I do not believe you really think that. I have been writing and talking about the danger for years. But the West has difficulty in acknowledging evil - often until it is far too late, and millions die.
And you criticize Netanyahu for telling French Jews they are welcome to come home to Israel? Why would you do that? I see no inconsistency. The world is an increasingly dangerous place for Jews wherever they live. Sadly, your article then encourages the likes of one letter writer who, in this week's Jewish Journal expressed her disgust for Netanyahu. I wonder if she was equally disgusted by Obama's breach of protocol in Egypt. I wonder if she is equally disgusted by the idea of the Ayatollahs having nukes, and having already expressed their desire to wipe Israel off the map. So here is Netanyahu, the lone voice in the world trying to prevent another Munich pact. And yet you and the aforementioned letter writer single him out for your contempt. That's the part I don't get.
I hope you will take a few minutes and read my posts on the issue. Respectfully, The Truth-Uncensored
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Berenbaum Sent: Fri, Feb 6, 2015 2:09 pm Subject: RE: Jewish Journal article
I don’t minimize the threat of a nuclear Iran. I have written about it for years. Attached is a piece that I wrote on it. I have not changed my mind. It is ironic that that Prime Minister on the one hand offers safety to French Jews facing antisemitism – come here and be safe – and then says to the world community, we face nuclear annihilation. I also believe that Jews are not powerless victims in this matter. Israel has a second strike capacity and deterrence. Again, there is one judgment I do not know how to make, namely would Iran be willing to lose 35 million of its own if it were to kill millions of Jews and Palestinians and damage the “holy sites” which would be uninhabitable were it to attack with nuclear weapons. If they do not fully believe in an afterlife or if they are rational, then that should be grounds for hesitation.
But the interesting assumption is that a military attack would work. The Israeli security people that I know believe that it is a minor setback. Sanctions are foolish; they would not work because they demand international cooperation, cooperation which would be impossible to get if the US is perceived as changing the rules. And the decline in the price of oil is the ultimate sanction. Iran needs $100 a barrel to avoid economic chaog.
The Corker amendment makes much more sense, meaning that the Senate could disapprove of the agreement as if forces upon the President a stronger agreement.
I do not trust the Prime Minister’s statement of the urgency of the problem. He said it was a matter of months in 2011, again in September of 2012 and again in September of 2013, it is not 2015. His own security cabinet could not be convinced and I presume that they have better intelligence than I do.
I am also more skeptical or the unintended consequences of the attack were one forthcoming. There were plenty of unintended consequences over the US invasion of Iraq, plenty of them in Lebanon and in Gaza I and Gaza II. We have to be prepared for a world-wide retaliation on Israeli and Jewish targets and we are not.
The Prime Minister’s move has already backfired. There will be no sanctions, at least not now. He has succeeded in changing bi-partisan support for Israel into partisan support only. And in alienating the Democrats, who enjoyed some 70% of the support of the Jewish community. He is probably alienating many young Jews but may in fact be helping his reelection campaign, which was his one goal.
The article below was written in 2012.
Questions and More Questions on Iran: What do We Know? What Don’t We Know? by Dr. Michael Berenbaum February 28, 2012 | 11:53 am
I have been reading a lot about whether Israel should attack Iran nuclear facilities and I am struck by the confidence that the protagonists on both sides of the issue have in the soundness of their arguments. Frankly speaking I do not know. So let me weigh the arguments and the uncertainty. This will have to be an “on the one hand and on the other hand” type of column.
Let us begin with what we know. Twice in history Israel has attacked regional nuclear installations; once in Iraq in 1981 and again in Syria in 2007. Both attacks were swift and successful. And despite the loud chorus of criticism at the time, both made significant contributions to peace. The world, which was infuriated at Israel – at least publicly – should have been grateful. Were Israel able to replicate those feats this time without plunging into another war, the world would also be grateful, perhaps even publicly so. Imagine if Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons when he entered Kuwait; imagine a nuclear Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and imagine if Syria had nuclear arms today when its government is faltering and attacking its own people. One could even argue that Menachem Begin deserved the Nobel Prize for peace precisely for bombing Iraq than for his historic agreement with Anwar Sadat that brought Israel a third of a century of cold peace with Egypt and may unravel tomorrow.
Jews historically would be wise to trust threats more than promises. The threats of leaders to destroy Israel deserve to be taken seriously. Words are weapons and words used by political leaders have a way of enunciating policies and national goals. So the threat is real and must be taken seriously. No government of Israel—however hawkish or dovish—could do otherwise and no President of the United States can dismiss the nature of this threat.
Aside from Ron Paul no one running for President, neither the incumbent nor his would be opponents, is behaving otherwise. And promises made to Israel should be treated lightly as nations act in their national interest and one wonders what the American people’s response would be if oil were scarce and gas was $15 a gallon or the US found itself bogged down in yet another war in a Muslim country. Might that impose some distance between the US and Israel under any President?
What do we not know? Questions and more questions: Does Israel have the capacity to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities? Does the United States? Do Israel or the United States have the capacity to attack all of them or some of them? Can Israel anticipate and handle the attacks that will surely follow?
Let us examine the last question for a moment: Having fought two wars in the last decade that seemingly caught Israel unprepared and with only limited success and unclear political goals one wonders whether Israel’s vaunted intelligence services are to be trusted in their assessment of such possibilities. Having replaced the reticent heads of the Mossad and the IDF in part because of their cautious warnings, one wonders if their successors are willing to give the Prime Minister and the Defense Minister the independent cautious assessment that is required.
American intelligence demonstrated that it was inept at assessing both the status of Iraq WMD program and the consequences of the war in Iraq and in the region. Do we know more today that we did then? Are we any better in gathering and assessing intelligence than we were a decade ago? Caution is advised, caution and considerable judgment
Have the acts of sabotage and assassination slowed down Iran’s nuclear development. Are other acts possible? I have no idea if Israel is behind these attacks or the United States—nor should I—but someone should know what the collective impact of computer viruses, targeted assassinations and disruptions in the supply chain have had on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Have they bought time? How much time? Will they work over a longer period of time?
And what has been the impact of the sanctions on Iran? Have they been effective? Will they be more effective? Are they forcing the Iranian people into the arms of their government as both unite against external enemies or have they hastened the divide between the people and its rules and will that also impose some limits on Iran?
I think that the President should be given some credit for working successfully multi-laterally to get the sanctions in place. Who are the friends of Israel? Those who urge Israel to attack or those who urge caution and time? Reasonable arguments can be made for either side. I know that the politicalization of the issue in the heat of a presidential campaign in the United States does not augur well for sound policy decisions. This is one of those moments where the vote in Florida should not be the issue, but the security of the United States and of Israel should be.
I am somewhat dismayed that the very same forces that argued for a war with Iraq and downplayed its costs and its protracted nature are also giving us a clear assessment of the positive impact of an Israeli attack. Many of the same men and women on both sides of the Atlantic failed to see that one of the most significant results of the War in Iraq was the strengthening of Iran and the enlargement of its political ambitions and its nuclear ambitions. I am perplexed that Israel is talking so much about the attack. Recall that the 1981 and 2007 attacks came as a surprise; so too, the attack at Entebbe. Not a word was spoken. In fact, Israel did not confirm the Ehud Omert led attack on Syria until after Benjamin Netanyahu, then the opposition leader, accidently confirmed it.
As a rule, if Israel is talking about a military action, it is not going to act. “Say little and do much” was the sage advice of our Talmudic sages and our most successful military leaders. Could it be that Israel is talking so much precisely because it is so hesitant to act since its leadership is as perplexed by the questions it can’t answer even with all the information it has?
I don’t envy others their clarity. It would be wise to accept the perplexity of the situation, what we know and what we do not know. I also don’t envy the American President or the Israeli Prime Minister the decisions they must make.
From: The Truth-Uncensored Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 1:43 AM To: mberenbaum Subject: Jewish Journal article
Dear Mr. Berenbaum,
In light of the other fine work you have done, I was appalled by your minimizing the existential threat to Israel. You say a nuclear Iran poses an "important danger" to Israel. Is that like Hitler and the Nazis posed an "important danger" to European Jewry?
Is there politics involved? Always, but who cares? Obama played politics and broke protocol when he had David Cameron call US Senators in an effort to persuade them to not support additional sanctions on Iran. Politics.
Tell me what other world leader is speaking out against this existential threat to Israel, and the overall threat to the world? Russia, which helped build Iran's nuclear reactors, is part of the 5+1 negotiating team. What a joke!
I assume from some of your comments that you are a Democrat. In light of your other work I am shocked and beyond disappointed that your liberal/Democrat leanings would supercede what should be a very real concern about another Holocaust.
I trust you read the pieces by Rabbi Boteach and Dennis Prager. Yet you believe we should be more concerned about politics and hurt feelings over the Ayatollahs having nukes. I don't get it.
Respectfully, The Truth-Uncensored I blog at: http://www.truth-uncensored.blogspot.com In case you are interested.
Dear Mr. Berenbaum, Thank you for your reply. I read the article that you had written about Iranian nukes, and except for a couple of the political comments at the end I find no basis for disagreement. It is well-balanced and thoughtful. I too have been writing about the issue for some time. I have been writing my blog for six years and on 11/26/09 I wrote a post entitled "Iranian Nukes." On 2/21/10 I wrote "Iranian Nukes, Part II." Again, the blog is at: http://www.truth-uncensored.blogspot.com
All the posts are there and if you scroll back you will find them. You will note that my original position was faulting Bush for not insisting on an alliance with Britain, France and Germany in order to launch an aerial assault taking out the Iranian nuclear facilities when it was clear Iran had no interest in negotiations. For over a decade they have feigned interest, all the while building up their nuclear facilities. Had Bush taken care of it at the time, Iran's facilities were much less in number and less spread out around the country.
I also agree that Netanyahu has no good choices. If he does nothing, he risks that the Ayatollahs will do as promised and nuke Israel. A couple of well placed nukes would devastate the country and possibly kill millions. Some of the Ayatollahs and one prior president of Iran have already said that their country is large enough to absorb any nuclear retaliation by Israel. You ask if the Ayatollahs are rational. You ask if they would risk tens of millions being killed. How many fanatics has history shown us that do not care about that at all - Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and on and on. If Israel does attack, I totally agree that we can expect worldwide attacks on Jewish institutions and people. And, as you noted, the attack may not even accomplish much.
So Netanyahu clearly realizes his limitations, and has been trying to get the West to take out the Iranian nukes; and now, trying to prevent a deal that will allow Iran to get nukes in a matter of a few months if they choose to abrogate any negotiated deal. And now it comes out that, in return, Obama is asking that Iran help maintain stability throughout the Middle East. So, here is where we part company, perhaps. Obama wants to bring his fundamental change to the world order - and in almost every instance supports the wrong side of a dispute.
Who in their right mind thinks Iran will be a force for stability. You are right - Netanyahu is talking and has been talking to try to wake the West up to the threat. So here we are negotiating in Munich - just like in 1938. And when Hitler decided he was not bound by that deal - WWII. How long will it take Iran to decide they are not bound by this deal?
As for the breach of protocol, that is pure nonsense. Recall Obama's first speech was to the Muslim world out of Cairo. There he was in Egypt, a guest of then President Hosni Mubarek, and what does Obama do? He invites members of the outlawed terrorist group, the Muslim Brotherhood, to come to his speech. Talk about a breach of protocol. Mubarek was furious and did not attend the speech. So Obama has never cared about protocol (I could give other examples) from day one. No, this entire dust-up is because Obama sees the Iranian deal as his major foreign policy achievement - and, as always, will tolerate no dissent. And I know we disagree on this - but I do not believe Obama would lose one minute of sleep if Israel were wiped off the map. In virtually every instance he has aligned himself with the Muslims, including the most radical ones.
And Obama has already indicated he does not intend to get Senate approval of any deal, reflecting yet again his total contempt for Congress, the separation of powers, and the Constitution. I just do not understand your statement that Netanyahu has only one goal - his reelection. Are you saying he does not care about the survival of Israel and the Jewish people? It seems inconsistent with your comment about Netanyahu talking about, and warning of, the danger for years. Why has he done that? Just to get reelected each time? I do not believe you really think that. I have been writing and talking about the danger for years. But the West has difficulty in acknowledging evil - often until it is far too late, and millions die.
And you criticize Netanyahu for telling French Jews they are welcome to come home to Israel? Why would you do that? I see no inconsistency. The world is an increasingly dangerous place for Jews wherever they live. Sadly, your article then encourages the likes of one letter writer who, in this week's Jewish Journal expressed her disgust for Netanyahu. I wonder if she was equally disgusted by Obama's breach of protocol in Egypt. I wonder if she is equally disgusted by the idea of the Ayatollahs having nukes, and having already expressed their desire to wipe Israel off the map. So here is Netanyahu, the lone voice in the world trying to prevent another Munich pact. And yet you and the aforementioned letter writer single him out for your contempt. That's the part I don't get.
I hope you will take a few minutes and read my posts on the issue. Respectfully, The Truth-Uncensored
-----Original Message----- From: Michael Berenbaum Sent: Fri, Feb 6, 2015 2:09 pm Subject: RE: Jewish Journal article
I don’t minimize the threat of a nuclear Iran. I have written about it for years. Attached is a piece that I wrote on it. I have not changed my mind. It is ironic that that Prime Minister on the one hand offers safety to French Jews facing antisemitism – come here and be safe – and then says to the world community, we face nuclear annihilation. I also believe that Jews are not powerless victims in this matter. Israel has a second strike capacity and deterrence. Again, there is one judgment I do not know how to make, namely would Iran be willing to lose 35 million of its own if it were to kill millions of Jews and Palestinians and damage the “holy sites” which would be uninhabitable were it to attack with nuclear weapons. If they do not fully believe in an afterlife or if they are rational, then that should be grounds for hesitation.
But the interesting assumption is that a military attack would work. The Israeli security people that I know believe that it is a minor setback. Sanctions are foolish; they would not work because they demand international cooperation, cooperation which would be impossible to get if the US is perceived as changing the rules. And the decline in the price of oil is the ultimate sanction. Iran needs $100 a barrel to avoid economic chaog.
The Corker amendment makes much more sense, meaning that the Senate could disapprove of the agreement as if forces upon the President a stronger agreement.
I do not trust the Prime Minister’s statement of the urgency of the problem. He said it was a matter of months in 2011, again in September of 2012 and again in September of 2013, it is not 2015. His own security cabinet could not be convinced and I presume that they have better intelligence than I do.
I am also more skeptical or the unintended consequences of the attack were one forthcoming. There were plenty of unintended consequences over the US invasion of Iraq, plenty of them in Lebanon and in Gaza I and Gaza II. We have to be prepared for a world-wide retaliation on Israeli and Jewish targets and we are not.
The Prime Minister’s move has already backfired. There will be no sanctions, at least not now. He has succeeded in changing bi-partisan support for Israel into partisan support only. And in alienating the Democrats, who enjoyed some 70% of the support of the Jewish community. He is probably alienating many young Jews but may in fact be helping his reelection campaign, which was his one goal.
The article below was written in 2012.
Questions and More Questions on Iran: What do We Know? What Don’t We Know? by Dr. Michael Berenbaum February 28, 2012 | 11:53 am
I have been reading a lot about whether Israel should attack Iran nuclear facilities and I am struck by the confidence that the protagonists on both sides of the issue have in the soundness of their arguments. Frankly speaking I do not know. So let me weigh the arguments and the uncertainty. This will have to be an “on the one hand and on the other hand” type of column.
Let us begin with what we know. Twice in history Israel has attacked regional nuclear installations; once in Iraq in 1981 and again in Syria in 2007. Both attacks were swift and successful. And despite the loud chorus of criticism at the time, both made significant contributions to peace. The world, which was infuriated at Israel – at least publicly – should have been grateful. Were Israel able to replicate those feats this time without plunging into another war, the world would also be grateful, perhaps even publicly so. Imagine if Saddam Hussein had nuclear weapons when he entered Kuwait; imagine a nuclear Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war and imagine if Syria had nuclear arms today when its government is faltering and attacking its own people. One could even argue that Menachem Begin deserved the Nobel Prize for peace precisely for bombing Iraq than for his historic agreement with Anwar Sadat that brought Israel a third of a century of cold peace with Egypt and may unravel tomorrow.
Jews historically would be wise to trust threats more than promises. The threats of leaders to destroy Israel deserve to be taken seriously. Words are weapons and words used by political leaders have a way of enunciating policies and national goals. So the threat is real and must be taken seriously. No government of Israel—however hawkish or dovish—could do otherwise and no President of the United States can dismiss the nature of this threat.
Aside from Ron Paul no one running for President, neither the incumbent nor his would be opponents, is behaving otherwise. And promises made to Israel should be treated lightly as nations act in their national interest and one wonders what the American people’s response would be if oil were scarce and gas was $15 a gallon or the US found itself bogged down in yet another war in a Muslim country. Might that impose some distance between the US and Israel under any President?
What do we not know? Questions and more questions: Does Israel have the capacity to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities? Does the United States? Do Israel or the United States have the capacity to attack all of them or some of them? Can Israel anticipate and handle the attacks that will surely follow?
Let us examine the last question for a moment: Having fought two wars in the last decade that seemingly caught Israel unprepared and with only limited success and unclear political goals one wonders whether Israel’s vaunted intelligence services are to be trusted in their assessment of such possibilities. Having replaced the reticent heads of the Mossad and the IDF in part because of their cautious warnings, one wonders if their successors are willing to give the Prime Minister and the Defense Minister the independent cautious assessment that is required.
American intelligence demonstrated that it was inept at assessing both the status of Iraq WMD program and the consequences of the war in Iraq and in the region. Do we know more today that we did then? Are we any better in gathering and assessing intelligence than we were a decade ago? Caution is advised, caution and considerable judgment
Have the acts of sabotage and assassination slowed down Iran’s nuclear development. Are other acts possible? I have no idea if Israel is behind these attacks or the United States—nor should I—but someone should know what the collective impact of computer viruses, targeted assassinations and disruptions in the supply chain have had on Iran’s nuclear ambitions. Have they bought time? How much time? Will they work over a longer period of time?
And what has been the impact of the sanctions on Iran? Have they been effective? Will they be more effective? Are they forcing the Iranian people into the arms of their government as both unite against external enemies or have they hastened the divide between the people and its rules and will that also impose some limits on Iran?
I think that the President should be given some credit for working successfully multi-laterally to get the sanctions in place. Who are the friends of Israel? Those who urge Israel to attack or those who urge caution and time? Reasonable arguments can be made for either side. I know that the politicalization of the issue in the heat of a presidential campaign in the United States does not augur well for sound policy decisions. This is one of those moments where the vote in Florida should not be the issue, but the security of the United States and of Israel should be.
I am somewhat dismayed that the very same forces that argued for a war with Iraq and downplayed its costs and its protracted nature are also giving us a clear assessment of the positive impact of an Israeli attack. Many of the same men and women on both sides of the Atlantic failed to see that one of the most significant results of the War in Iraq was the strengthening of Iran and the enlargement of its political ambitions and its nuclear ambitions. I am perplexed that Israel is talking so much about the attack. Recall that the 1981 and 2007 attacks came as a surprise; so too, the attack at Entebbe. Not a word was spoken. In fact, Israel did not confirm the Ehud Omert led attack on Syria until after Benjamin Netanyahu, then the opposition leader, accidently confirmed it.
As a rule, if Israel is talking about a military action, it is not going to act. “Say little and do much” was the sage advice of our Talmudic sages and our most successful military leaders. Could it be that Israel is talking so much precisely because it is so hesitant to act since its leadership is as perplexed by the questions it can’t answer even with all the information it has?
I don’t envy others their clarity. It would be wise to accept the perplexity of the situation, what we know and what we do not know. I also don’t envy the American President or the Israeli Prime Minister the decisions they must make.
From: The Truth-Uncensored Sent: Saturday, January 31, 2015 1:43 AM To: mberenbaum Subject: Jewish Journal article
Dear Mr. Berenbaum,
In light of the other fine work you have done, I was appalled by your minimizing the existential threat to Israel. You say a nuclear Iran poses an "important danger" to Israel. Is that like Hitler and the Nazis posed an "important danger" to European Jewry?
Is there politics involved? Always, but who cares? Obama played politics and broke protocol when he had David Cameron call US Senators in an effort to persuade them to not support additional sanctions on Iran. Politics.
Tell me what other world leader is speaking out against this existential threat to Israel, and the overall threat to the world? Russia, which helped build Iran's nuclear reactors, is part of the 5+1 negotiating team. What a joke!
I assume from some of your comments that you are a Democrat. In light of your other work I am shocked and beyond disappointed that your liberal/Democrat leanings would supercede what should be a very real concern about another Holocaust.
I trust you read the pieces by Rabbi Boteach and Dennis Prager. Yet you believe we should be more concerned about politics and hurt feelings over the Ayatollahs having nukes. I don't get it.
Respectfully, The Truth-Uncensored I blog at: http://www.truth-uncensored.blogspot.com In case you are interested.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)