Recently, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was told by White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest that "the inflammatory rhetoric needs to stop." You see, Netanyahu somewhat overstated the case when he said that during the World War II era, the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem persuaded Hitler to exterminate all the Jews instead of deporting them. Hitler apparently came up with the idea of the Jewish genocide on his own.
However, there is no doubt that the Grand Mufti supported the Holocaust. In Carolyn Glick's book, The Israeli Solution, she discusses how the Mufti was eager to assist Hitler but wanted two things in exchange: support for the Mufti ruling much of the Middle East (including modern day Iraq, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Israel), and support for the genocide of Middle East Jewry. Support for genocide of the Jews!
So, Netanyahu overstated the argument - but not by that much. For that, he got White House condemnation. Mahmoud Abbas, the leader of the Palestinian Authority, recently said this: "We welcome every drop of blood spilled in Jerusalem. This is pure blood, clean blood, blood on its way to Allah." Have you heard the outcry yet? Have you heard the White House complain that the Palestinian Muslims have a culture of death? Many non-Jews have even heard that most famous Jewish toast: L'Chaim! To life! Does Obama ever acknowledge the contrast?
Abbas also recently said these words: "Al Aksa (mosque) is ours and so is the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. They (Jews) have no right to desecrate them with their filthy feet." Still waiting for that outcry from the White House?
On numerous occasions Abbas has said that not one single Jew may live in any new Palestinian state. There are over one million Arabs living in Israel. But not a single Jew may live in "Palestine." Are you straining to hear the protestations from the White House?
The dean of Koran studies at Gaza University had this to say: "All Jews in Palestine today are fair game - even the women...Every single Jew in Palestine is a combatant, even the children." He then called for attacks throughout Israel: "...in the very heart of the enemy - in Haifa, Jaffa, Tel Aviv, and Hadera as was the case in the past because that is what hurts the Jews." Maybe if we all cup our hands around our ears we can hear the denunciations from the White House.
By contrast, here are recent comments from Presidential candidate Senator Ted Cruz: "I believe that nobody wants to see peace more than the Israeli people. The barrier to peace is not the government of Israel. The barrier to peace is Palestinians who refuse to renounce terrorism and refuse to even acknowledge Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state."
Cruz continued: "The Palestinians have turned down every reasonable offer of peace. And I believe America should stand unshakably alongside the nation of Israel." A little over a year ago, Cruz spoke at a Middle Eastern Christian event. Said Cruz: "Tonight, we are united in defense of Christians. Tonight, we are united in defense of Jews...Christians have no greater ally than Israel." The booing was deafening. But Cruz did not back down. He did not play to the room for political benefit.
Instead, Cruz said this: "If you will not stand with Israel and the Jews, then I will not stand with you. Good night and G-d bless." Then Cruz walked out. That type of moral clarity simply does not fit with Obama's agenda. It is not part of Obama's makeup - so don't expect to hear it. You can uncup your hands from your ears now. The next sound you hear will be the voice of...Josh Earnest, condemning Israel for something else.
Thursday, October 22, 2015
Wednesday, October 14, 2015
With Friends Like These...
From October 1 through early yesterday 7 Israelis have been attacked and killed by Arabs, with dozens more wounded. The attackers frequently walked up behind people and started stabbing them with knives. Whether it was an older person or a 13 year old victim, it made no difference to these animals. They believe that all Jews should be killed. The 7 dead Israelis is the equivalent of 278 Americans stabbed to death in under two weeks, and as if the attacks occurred all across the country. How long would Americans tolerate that?
Then along comes Secretary of State John Kerry, essentially justifying the murder of innocent Israeli civilians, with this: "And there's been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years, and now you have this violence because there's a frustration that is growing."
In the world occupied by the left, there is always an excuse for evil - because the left has a problem with acknowledging that evil even exists. So, the Arabs are frustrated. Many blacks in this country are frustrated because of the number of black deaths at the hands of the police. I guess that would justify blacks going out and randomly killing whites, in the eyes of John Kerry. After all, they are frustrated - just like the Arabs are.
The State Department attempted to back off the apparent link made by Kerry with this comment by spokesperson John Kirby: "The secretary wasn't saying, well now you have the settlement activity as the cause for the effect we're seeing."
Nice try, because Kirby added: "Is it a source of frustration for Palestinians. You bet it is, and the secretary observed that. But this isn't about affixing blame on either side here for the violence..." It's not? The Arabs started what may be the beginning of a third intifada. The Israelis reacted in self-defense. But in the eyes of the left we never affix blame. Rather, the left lives in the world of moral equivalency. No side is right and no side is wrong.
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media and various world leaders have adopted that viewpoint; simply stating that the violence by both sides has to stop, with no mention of who started it. And certainly no mention of who's at fault. They just condemn "violence," as if violence is the perpetrator.
The State Department spokesman continued talking out of both sides of his mouth, first stating that "the Israeli government has a right and a responsibility to protect its citizens." But then he added this: "We've certainly seen some reports of what many would consider excessive use of force, obviously we don't like to see that." I take it that Israelis can defend themselves - as long as no Arabs get hurt.
Isn't it nice to know that in the worldview of people like John Kerry, and the left generally, frustration can justify not only criminal behavior, but murder. When someone is rushing at you with a knife intending to stab you to death, I think you're going to want a gun to stop the attacker dead in his tracks - so that you're not stopped dead in yours. The moral idiots of the left be damned!
Then along comes Secretary of State John Kerry, essentially justifying the murder of innocent Israeli civilians, with this: "And there's been a massive increase in settlements over the course of the last years, and now you have this violence because there's a frustration that is growing."
In the world occupied by the left, there is always an excuse for evil - because the left has a problem with acknowledging that evil even exists. So, the Arabs are frustrated. Many blacks in this country are frustrated because of the number of black deaths at the hands of the police. I guess that would justify blacks going out and randomly killing whites, in the eyes of John Kerry. After all, they are frustrated - just like the Arabs are.
The State Department attempted to back off the apparent link made by Kerry with this comment by spokesperson John Kirby: "The secretary wasn't saying, well now you have the settlement activity as the cause for the effect we're seeing."
Nice try, because Kirby added: "Is it a source of frustration for Palestinians. You bet it is, and the secretary observed that. But this isn't about affixing blame on either side here for the violence..." It's not? The Arabs started what may be the beginning of a third intifada. The Israelis reacted in self-defense. But in the eyes of the left we never affix blame. Rather, the left lives in the world of moral equivalency. No side is right and no side is wrong.
Not surprisingly, the mainstream media and various world leaders have adopted that viewpoint; simply stating that the violence by both sides has to stop, with no mention of who started it. And certainly no mention of who's at fault. They just condemn "violence," as if violence is the perpetrator.
The State Department spokesman continued talking out of both sides of his mouth, first stating that "the Israeli government has a right and a responsibility to protect its citizens." But then he added this: "We've certainly seen some reports of what many would consider excessive use of force, obviously we don't like to see that." I take it that Israelis can defend themselves - as long as no Arabs get hurt.
Isn't it nice to know that in the worldview of people like John Kerry, and the left generally, frustration can justify not only criminal behavior, but murder. When someone is rushing at you with a knife intending to stab you to death, I think you're going to want a gun to stop the attacker dead in his tracks - so that you're not stopped dead in yours. The moral idiots of the left be damned!
Sunday, October 11, 2015
He Was Practiced at the Art of Deception*
There were two very interesting opinion pieces regarding Obama's policy outlook in the 10/6/15 Wall Street Journal. One was by William McGurn, former speechwriter for George W. Bush. McGurn was comparing Obama with Jimmy Carter.
McGurn: "...toward the end of his tenure, President Carter proved himself capable of something that still eludes President Obama: a willingness to learn from mistakes and reconsider options." McGurn then goes on to note how Carter finally realized he needed to do something about the runaway inflation, and so appointed Paul Volcker who agreed: "Inflation certainly is the priority."
McGurn then discusses how the realities of Soviet behavior (the invasion of Afghanistan) made Carter reconsider his foreign policy. The US boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics, we imposed embargoes on certain Russian goods, and we supported the Afghan resistance. Carter even withdrew from the Senate "the one thing he had devoted his presidency to, his beloved SALT II treaty."
McGurn concludes: "Is there any any intrusion of reality that could ever persuade Mr. Obama to do the same" (and change course)? The other opinion piece was by Bret Stephens, who writes a regular column on foreign affairs for the Journal. Stephens has a much better understanding of Obama.
Stephens: "Mr. Obama believes his Syria policy - the one that did nothing as 250,000 people were murdered; the one that did nothing as his own red lines were crossed; the one that allowed ISIS to flourish; the one that has created the greatest refugee crisis of the 21st century; the one currently being exploited by Russia and Iran for geopolitical advantage - is a success."
In this writer's opinion it is not necessarily that Obama is happy with all the consequences of his inaction; he would probably view those things as unavoidable (if not desirable in some cases) consequences of his approach. Stephens explains Obama's "...fundamental conviction about American foreign policy is that we need less of it - less commitment, less expense, less responsibility."
In a further WSJ opinion piece by Niall Ferguson (in the 10/10-10/11/15 edition), he discusses some of the other consequences of Obama's foreign policy. "Since 2010, total fatalities from armed conflict in the world have increased by a factor of close to four," citing data from the International Institute of Strategic Studies. Then, citing a study from the University of Maryland, Ferguson says: "total fatalities due to terrorism have risen nearly sixfold."
Currently, both Russian and Iranian troops are in Syria - on Israel's northern border. The 10/12/15 IBD reports that Chinese warships are also en route to the Middle East. If there is one region of the world that would be most likely to set off another world war it would be the Middle East.
Obama's take on this is that Russia is acting out of weakness, not strength. Obama gave an interview to Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes, which is to air later today. Kroft to Obama: "He's (Putin) challenging your leadership, Mr. President." Obama's reply: "...if you think that running your economy into the ground and having to send troops in, in order to prop up your only ally is leadership, then we've got a different definition of leadership."
You have to hand it to Obama. He is indeed practiced at the art of deception. Whether it's keeping your health insurance policy, or keeping your doctor, or drawing a red line and then claiming he did not draw that line, Obama can lie with a straight face better than most who have preceded him. But when the ends justify the means, and truth is not a value - only the agenda is, then it is fairly easy to lie and not think anything of it.
I give Obama credit for this latest lie. Putin taking action is not true leadership; Obama doing nothing with turmoil swirling all around him - that's leadership. Putin taking the Crimea and part of Eastern Ukraine? Not leadership. Meanwhile, Obama's lackey, John Kerry, is practically begging his Russian counterpart to stand down, telling him that Russian involvement in Syria will only make things worse.
As Charles Krauthammer states in the 9/18/15 IBD, Russia's involement in Syria does not make things worse for Russia. Russia extends their power and influence to the Middle East, in a way that they have not been able to do since the 1970s when they were kicked out of Egypt.
Krauthammer: "Obama has given short shrift to the Kurds, shafted America's allies with the Iran deal and abandoned the Anbar Sunnis who helped us win the surge." Now that is what Obama would call leadership.
(*Apologies to the Rolling Stones.)
McGurn: "...toward the end of his tenure, President Carter proved himself capable of something that still eludes President Obama: a willingness to learn from mistakes and reconsider options." McGurn then goes on to note how Carter finally realized he needed to do something about the runaway inflation, and so appointed Paul Volcker who agreed: "Inflation certainly is the priority."
McGurn then discusses how the realities of Soviet behavior (the invasion of Afghanistan) made Carter reconsider his foreign policy. The US boycotted the 1980 Moscow Olympics, we imposed embargoes on certain Russian goods, and we supported the Afghan resistance. Carter even withdrew from the Senate "the one thing he had devoted his presidency to, his beloved SALT II treaty."
McGurn concludes: "Is there any any intrusion of reality that could ever persuade Mr. Obama to do the same" (and change course)? The other opinion piece was by Bret Stephens, who writes a regular column on foreign affairs for the Journal. Stephens has a much better understanding of Obama.
Stephens: "Mr. Obama believes his Syria policy - the one that did nothing as 250,000 people were murdered; the one that did nothing as his own red lines were crossed; the one that allowed ISIS to flourish; the one that has created the greatest refugee crisis of the 21st century; the one currently being exploited by Russia and Iran for geopolitical advantage - is a success."
In this writer's opinion it is not necessarily that Obama is happy with all the consequences of his inaction; he would probably view those things as unavoidable (if not desirable in some cases) consequences of his approach. Stephens explains Obama's "...fundamental conviction about American foreign policy is that we need less of it - less commitment, less expense, less responsibility."
In a further WSJ opinion piece by Niall Ferguson (in the 10/10-10/11/15 edition), he discusses some of the other consequences of Obama's foreign policy. "Since 2010, total fatalities from armed conflict in the world have increased by a factor of close to four," citing data from the International Institute of Strategic Studies. Then, citing a study from the University of Maryland, Ferguson says: "total fatalities due to terrorism have risen nearly sixfold."
Currently, both Russian and Iranian troops are in Syria - on Israel's northern border. The 10/12/15 IBD reports that Chinese warships are also en route to the Middle East. If there is one region of the world that would be most likely to set off another world war it would be the Middle East.
Obama's take on this is that Russia is acting out of weakness, not strength. Obama gave an interview to Steve Kroft of 60 Minutes, which is to air later today. Kroft to Obama: "He's (Putin) challenging your leadership, Mr. President." Obama's reply: "...if you think that running your economy into the ground and having to send troops in, in order to prop up your only ally is leadership, then we've got a different definition of leadership."
You have to hand it to Obama. He is indeed practiced at the art of deception. Whether it's keeping your health insurance policy, or keeping your doctor, or drawing a red line and then claiming he did not draw that line, Obama can lie with a straight face better than most who have preceded him. But when the ends justify the means, and truth is not a value - only the agenda is, then it is fairly easy to lie and not think anything of it.
I give Obama credit for this latest lie. Putin taking action is not true leadership; Obama doing nothing with turmoil swirling all around him - that's leadership. Putin taking the Crimea and part of Eastern Ukraine? Not leadership. Meanwhile, Obama's lackey, John Kerry, is practically begging his Russian counterpart to stand down, telling him that Russian involvement in Syria will only make things worse.
As Charles Krauthammer states in the 9/18/15 IBD, Russia's involement in Syria does not make things worse for Russia. Russia extends their power and influence to the Middle East, in a way that they have not been able to do since the 1970s when they were kicked out of Egypt.
Krauthammer: "Obama has given short shrift to the Kurds, shafted America's allies with the Iran deal and abandoned the Anbar Sunnis who helped us win the surge." Now that is what Obama would call leadership.
(*Apologies to the Rolling Stones.)
Does This Make Any Sense?
Remember a time when government workers got excellent benefits because they were paid less than those in the private sector? Government work at least meant job security. The 10/9/15 IBD reports on a wage comparison of earnings between federal government and private sector workers, based on a study by Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute.
According to the study, government workers average $84,153 per year. The private sector employees average $56,350 per year. Add in employee benefits and the results are truly shocking: $119,934 for government employees versus $67,246 for private employees. If you have ever dealt with a federal agency my bet would be that you do not believe those workers are worth 78% more than workers in the private sector.
This study by the Cato Institute is a perfect example of what is wrong with public employee unions. The unions spend large sums to back candidates who support their never-ending pay and benefit increases, and attack those who do not. Congressional members give in with taxpayer money (your money and my money) in order to protect their seats.
So, while private employers during this recession had to cut payroll, and even entire departments, the Feds were adding employees and increasing salaries. What a system.
Rand Paul has a solution. It is a solution that a more liberal friend and I have discussed and agreed on previously: zero-based budgeting. Far too frequently our government is faced with having to raise the debt limit. A large part of the problem is that each new budget assumes whatever was spent by each federal agency the prior year is the floor from which they begin to argue for more money.
With zero-based budgeting, each department of government would have to justify their very existence, and how much money they should get. If this is too big a task for yearly review, then make it a two year budget. But do it. It is the only approach that has the ability to shrink the size of the federal bureaucracy. All other efforts have only slowed the rate of growth of the federal government. The benefits are manifold. Less need for taking taxpayer money. Less competition for money between government and the private sector. And, of course, a lesser ability of government to try to control ever increasing aspects of our lives.
The lobbying pressure on Congress would be enormous. But at least the public would get to see who cares about their money and who does not; and what agencies are so important that government chooses to fund them over letting people keep their hard-earned money. Which brings up another topic.
Donald Trump has unveiled a tax plan that will allow 50% of Americans to not pay taxes. Bobby Jindal has a plan in which all Americans pay taxes. It is often said that about 46%-47% of Americans already do not pay taxes. The rebuttal is that many do still pay payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare). While that money is not put into any special "trust fund," it is paid with the expectation of getting it back at retirement age. Federal income tax is what funds day to day government operations, and yes, I believe everyone should contribute to that.
Which brings me to my final topic: Bernie Sanders. The self-professed Democratic-Socialist wants to see an ever-expanding government. Government paid healthcare, government paid child-care and preschool, and "free" tuition at public colleges, among other things. Then there are the mandates he wants to place on employers - $15 minimum wage, mandatory medical leave, sick leave and vacation pay. (Per 9/16/15 IBD.) He is also a friend of unions. Who will pay for all of this? Get ready for a lower standard of living. Greece anyone?
You have to love how the mainstream media consistently portray the Republican party as a bunch of extremists when they stand up for what were always considered to be traditional American values. But now that the Democrat party is supporting an avowed Socialist in large numbers? Not a peep about that real sea change.
According to the study, government workers average $84,153 per year. The private sector employees average $56,350 per year. Add in employee benefits and the results are truly shocking: $119,934 for government employees versus $67,246 for private employees. If you have ever dealt with a federal agency my bet would be that you do not believe those workers are worth 78% more than workers in the private sector.
This study by the Cato Institute is a perfect example of what is wrong with public employee unions. The unions spend large sums to back candidates who support their never-ending pay and benefit increases, and attack those who do not. Congressional members give in with taxpayer money (your money and my money) in order to protect their seats.
So, while private employers during this recession had to cut payroll, and even entire departments, the Feds were adding employees and increasing salaries. What a system.
Rand Paul has a solution. It is a solution that a more liberal friend and I have discussed and agreed on previously: zero-based budgeting. Far too frequently our government is faced with having to raise the debt limit. A large part of the problem is that each new budget assumes whatever was spent by each federal agency the prior year is the floor from which they begin to argue for more money.
With zero-based budgeting, each department of government would have to justify their very existence, and how much money they should get. If this is too big a task for yearly review, then make it a two year budget. But do it. It is the only approach that has the ability to shrink the size of the federal bureaucracy. All other efforts have only slowed the rate of growth of the federal government. The benefits are manifold. Less need for taking taxpayer money. Less competition for money between government and the private sector. And, of course, a lesser ability of government to try to control ever increasing aspects of our lives.
The lobbying pressure on Congress would be enormous. But at least the public would get to see who cares about their money and who does not; and what agencies are so important that government chooses to fund them over letting people keep their hard-earned money. Which brings up another topic.
Donald Trump has unveiled a tax plan that will allow 50% of Americans to not pay taxes. Bobby Jindal has a plan in which all Americans pay taxes. It is often said that about 46%-47% of Americans already do not pay taxes. The rebuttal is that many do still pay payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare). While that money is not put into any special "trust fund," it is paid with the expectation of getting it back at retirement age. Federal income tax is what funds day to day government operations, and yes, I believe everyone should contribute to that.
Which brings me to my final topic: Bernie Sanders. The self-professed Democratic-Socialist wants to see an ever-expanding government. Government paid healthcare, government paid child-care and preschool, and "free" tuition at public colleges, among other things. Then there are the mandates he wants to place on employers - $15 minimum wage, mandatory medical leave, sick leave and vacation pay. (Per 9/16/15 IBD.) He is also a friend of unions. Who will pay for all of this? Get ready for a lower standard of living. Greece anyone?
You have to love how the mainstream media consistently portray the Republican party as a bunch of extremists when they stand up for what were always considered to be traditional American values. But now that the Democrat party is supporting an avowed Socialist in large numbers? Not a peep about that real sea change.
Sunday, October 4, 2015
The Leader of the Free World Speaks at the UN
On October 1, the leader of the free world spoke to the UN General Assembly. No, not Obama. He spoke on 9/28. I was referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the one Western leader who speaks the truth. In keeping with his usual vindictive, ill-tempered, mean spiritedness towards Israel, Obama directed both Secretary of State Kerry and UN Ambassador Samantha Power to stay away while Netanyahu spoke.
Netanyahu spent much of his speech criticizing the Iran nuclear deal. "You see, this deal doesn't make peace more likely. By fueling Iran's aggression with billions of dollars in sanctions relief, it makes war more likely." Netanyahu then recounted how, in the last six months alone, Iran has sent weapons and military forces to Syria, supplied Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen with weapons, and has been setting up terror cells around the world.
Netanyahu: "Does anyone seriously believe that flooding a radical theocracy with weapons and cash will curb its appetite for aggression?" Actually, that would be Obama, who naively believes that Russia, China and Iran have any interest in adhering to Western values.
Netanyahu spoke of the latest threats to destroy Israel by the Iranians - from the Commander of their armed forces to the Ayatollah in his recently released book describing the destruction of Israel. "Seventy years after the murder of six million Jews, Iran's rulers promise to destroy my country. Murder my people. And the response from nearly every one of the governments represented here has been absolutely nothing! Utter silence! Deafening silence." Then, in one of the most powerful moments in UN speechmaking history, Netanyahu stood there in silence for 44 seconds, glaring at all the representatives present; representatives of countries who vote for one anti-Israel resolution after the next. Twenty such anti-Israel resolutions have been passed during the time the UN managed a total of 1 against Syria for killing hundreds of thousands and causing millions to be refugees.
In repeating an oft-made threat, Netanyahu said: "Israel will not allow Iran to break-in, to sneak-in, or to walk-in to the nuclear weapons club." "So here's my message to the rulers of Iran: Your plan to destroy Israel will fail. Israel will not permit any force on earth to threaten its future. And here's my message to all the countries represented here: Whatever resolutions you may adopt in this building, whatever decisions you may take in your capitals, Israel will do whatever it must do to defend our state and to defend our people."
Netanyahu: "A thousand years before the birth of Christianity, more than 1,500 years before the birth of Islam, King David made Jerusalem our capital, and King Solomon built the Temple on that mount. Yet Israel will always respect the sacred shrines of all." And the leaders of the Western world, starting with Obama, believe that Israel should share their eternal capital with an Arab Palestinian state that is sworn to Israel's destruction. I'm still waiting to see if Obama refuses a Security Council veto on a proposed resolution by France to establish a Palestinian state on the so-called 1967 borders.
Netanyahu noted how from ancient times with the Babylonians and Romans, to modern times with the pogroms and Holocaust, every generation of Jews seems to have faced annihilation. Netanyau: "I stand here today representing Israel, a country 67 years young, but the nation-state of a people nearly 4,000 years old. Yet the empires of Babylon and Rome are not represented in this hall of nations. Neither is the Thousand Year Reich. Those seemingly invincible empires are long gone. But Israel lives. The people of Israel live. Am Yisrael Chai."
Netanyahu spent much of his speech criticizing the Iran nuclear deal. "You see, this deal doesn't make peace more likely. By fueling Iran's aggression with billions of dollars in sanctions relief, it makes war more likely." Netanyahu then recounted how, in the last six months alone, Iran has sent weapons and military forces to Syria, supplied Hezbollah and the Houthis in Yemen with weapons, and has been setting up terror cells around the world.
Netanyahu: "Does anyone seriously believe that flooding a radical theocracy with weapons and cash will curb its appetite for aggression?" Actually, that would be Obama, who naively believes that Russia, China and Iran have any interest in adhering to Western values.
Netanyahu spoke of the latest threats to destroy Israel by the Iranians - from the Commander of their armed forces to the Ayatollah in his recently released book describing the destruction of Israel. "Seventy years after the murder of six million Jews, Iran's rulers promise to destroy my country. Murder my people. And the response from nearly every one of the governments represented here has been absolutely nothing! Utter silence! Deafening silence." Then, in one of the most powerful moments in UN speechmaking history, Netanyahu stood there in silence for 44 seconds, glaring at all the representatives present; representatives of countries who vote for one anti-Israel resolution after the next. Twenty such anti-Israel resolutions have been passed during the time the UN managed a total of 1 against Syria for killing hundreds of thousands and causing millions to be refugees.
In repeating an oft-made threat, Netanyahu said: "Israel will not allow Iran to break-in, to sneak-in, or to walk-in to the nuclear weapons club." "So here's my message to the rulers of Iran: Your plan to destroy Israel will fail. Israel will not permit any force on earth to threaten its future. And here's my message to all the countries represented here: Whatever resolutions you may adopt in this building, whatever decisions you may take in your capitals, Israel will do whatever it must do to defend our state and to defend our people."
Netanyahu: "A thousand years before the birth of Christianity, more than 1,500 years before the birth of Islam, King David made Jerusalem our capital, and King Solomon built the Temple on that mount. Yet Israel will always respect the sacred shrines of all." And the leaders of the Western world, starting with Obama, believe that Israel should share their eternal capital with an Arab Palestinian state that is sworn to Israel's destruction. I'm still waiting to see if Obama refuses a Security Council veto on a proposed resolution by France to establish a Palestinian state on the so-called 1967 borders.
Netanyahu noted how from ancient times with the Babylonians and Romans, to modern times with the pogroms and Holocaust, every generation of Jews seems to have faced annihilation. Netanyau: "I stand here today representing Israel, a country 67 years young, but the nation-state of a people nearly 4,000 years old. Yet the empires of Babylon and Rome are not represented in this hall of nations. Neither is the Thousand Year Reich. Those seemingly invincible empires are long gone. But Israel lives. The people of Israel live. Am Yisrael Chai."
Sunday, September 20, 2015
Where Will it End?
(Ed.'s note. Generally speaking, I author all the blog posts. There have been times when I have posted exchanges I have had with others - the Public Editor of the New York Times, a UCLA professor, a Holocaust scholar, and a friend. This post was written entirely by my son, as a letter to the Mayor of Reykjavik, Iceland. A motion was passed by the governing council of Reykjavik to boycott all products coming out of Israel. This follows on the heels of the proposal by the European Union to label all products coming out of the West Bank (Judea and Samaria), because the Europeans, like Obama, believe that land belongs to the "Palestinians." There was also a push in the U.K. to have Netanyahu arrested for war crimes during his recent visit there. Following condemnation by Jewish Groups and others, the motion was amended to limit the boycott to products coming from the West Bank. The Mayor of Reykjavik expressed shock over the reaction to the proposed total boycott of all things Israeli. I wonder if this city council is also willing to boycott the large number of scientific and life-saving medical inventions developed by Israelis. And what's next for the anti-Semites? Bar all Jews? Or make them wear a yellow badge/Jewish star, as required by the Nazis? Where will it end? Anyway, for a related post, see "Letter to a College Student," posted 3/25/11.)
"My friends and I are traveling to Iceland one week from today. We are all Jews. We have been talking about this trip for over a year and words just can't do justice to describe how excited we are. Unfortunately, our upcoming trip will be marred by the misguided and short-sighted decision by your city to boycott all Israeli goods.
I am truly disappointed in your city's decision to boycott all Israeli products. One wonders why Reykjavik has yet to boycott China for occupying Tibet, India and Pakistan for occupying Kashmir, Turkey for occupying Cyprus, Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Turkey for not allowing the establishment of a Kurdish state, and on and on and on. It is therefore bewildering why the great city of Reykjavik has chosen to single out the one Jewish country in the world.
Surely before coming to this decision the members of the council educated themselves on the conflict. They must have learned that Israel was created by a UN decision that also granted the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine territory for a state of their own. They also undoubtedly were informed that while the Jews happily accepted this proposal, the Arabs rejected it and immediately started a war to fight, in the words of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time, "until the Zionists were annihilated." This war ended with the 1949 Armistice lines, also known as the '67 lines. These lines encompassed an area far smaller than what the Arabs were originally offered by the UN. However, like your city council, they too were driven by pure hatred of the Jews, and like you surely will too, they lost.
I am sure that the esteemed council members also learned that Israel is a vibrant democracy whose very declaration of independence extended equal rights to all of its citizens, regardless of race, religion, or gender. Are they aware that an Arab citizen currently sits on Israel's supreme court, and that the Arab population of Israel is represented by multiple parties in Israel's parliament? This despite the fact that these parties constantly work to undermine the security if Israel. How many Arab and Muslim-majority countries offer such protections to their minorities? Egypt, which incessantly harasses its Coptic Christian minority? Iran, which is infamous in its persecution of Kurds, Yazidis, Baha'i (whose beautiful headquarters is in the Israeli city of Haifa, I might add, due to their persecution in their native Iran), and homosexuals, just to name a few. Saudi Arabia, where women must be escorted in public by a male relative and are forbidden from driving? Or perhaps Jordan, whose citizenry is over 70% Palestinian yet is run by the small Hashemite clan? If the council members’ decision was truly driven by a concern for the oppressed and downtrodden, and not by blatant anti-Semitism, your city would have boycotted all of these countries long ago.
I am certain that as part of their history lesson the city council members also learned that there never has been an independent political entity in what was the Palestinian Mandate except for ancient Israel and the modern State of Israel. For 2,000 years the region was simply a neglected backwater of various empires, except for a short period when your European brothers came over and killed as many native Jews as possible.
One wonders why the creation of an Arab entity in the heart of the Jewish homeland is more important to Reykjavik than, for example, the creation of a state for the 20 million Kurds that are repressed by their host nations. One wonders why the Icelandic people bear such ill-will toward the Jews. When have the Jews ever caused any harm to the people or country of Iceland? In fact, when has the average Icelander ever even encountered a Jew? Surely, despite age-old claims that the Jews control financial institutions, you don't blame them for your country's economic crisis in 2008, do you?
Iceland is a small country of 100,250 square km surrounded by water, with no natural enemies. Israel is an even smaller country of only 20,330 square km surrounded by hundreds of millions of people who openly and proudly proclaim that they will never rest until Israel and all of its Jewish inhabitants are destroyed. It faces incessant rocket attacks from its southern border with the Gaza Strip and from its northern border with Hezbollah-controlled southern Lebanon. With the civil-war raging in Syria (which, mind you, has killed 300,000 people and displaced over 12 million people in 4 years, compared to about 100,000 deaths from 1945 until now in the Arab-Israeli conflict), and potential instability in neighboring Jordan due to the ISIS threat, does it really make sense for Israel to make itself even more vulnerable than it already is by allowing a human-rights abusing, terrorist-supporting entity to spring up right in its own backyard?
Despite your best efforts to malign this oft-persecuted people, my friends and I will still travel to Iceland next week. We debated returning the favor by boycotting Reykjavik, but we decided that we will not let a few hateful members of the city council ruin what will undoubtedly be a great experience for the four of us. We refuse to blame an entire nation for what we feel is a misguided and morally bankrupt decision on the part of several of its leaders. Instead, we will enjoy all that Reykjavik and Iceland have to offer, while remaining strong in our belief that Israel is unworthy of the constant and vicious opprobrium that it receives not only from Iceland, but from all across Europe. Though I will still come to your city and country, I will be very careful not to discuss my personal background while I am there. You have made it very clear that Reykjavik is an unwelcoming city not just towards Israelis, but towards all Jews, regardless of their country of origin. It is a shame, and also a bit ironic, that in claiming to support human rights and dignity, the city of Reykjavik is sparing no effort to take away the dignity of the Jewish people. Fortunately, the Jews are a strong people, and we will not be cowed by false morality from the anti-Semitic bastion that is Europe. Had your council members paid a bit more attention to their history lessons, they would have already known this too."
"My friends and I are traveling to Iceland one week from today. We are all Jews. We have been talking about this trip for over a year and words just can't do justice to describe how excited we are. Unfortunately, our upcoming trip will be marred by the misguided and short-sighted decision by your city to boycott all Israeli goods.
I am truly disappointed in your city's decision to boycott all Israeli products. One wonders why Reykjavik has yet to boycott China for occupying Tibet, India and Pakistan for occupying Kashmir, Turkey for occupying Cyprus, Iraq, Syria, Iran, and Turkey for not allowing the establishment of a Kurdish state, and on and on and on. It is therefore bewildering why the great city of Reykjavik has chosen to single out the one Jewish country in the world.
Surely before coming to this decision the members of the council educated themselves on the conflict. They must have learned that Israel was created by a UN decision that also granted the Arabs of Mandatory Palestine territory for a state of their own. They also undoubtedly were informed that while the Jews happily accepted this proposal, the Arabs rejected it and immediately started a war to fight, in the words of the Grand Mufti of Jerusalem at the time, "until the Zionists were annihilated." This war ended with the 1949 Armistice lines, also known as the '67 lines. These lines encompassed an area far smaller than what the Arabs were originally offered by the UN. However, like your city council, they too were driven by pure hatred of the Jews, and like you surely will too, they lost.
I am sure that the esteemed council members also learned that Israel is a vibrant democracy whose very declaration of independence extended equal rights to all of its citizens, regardless of race, religion, or gender. Are they aware that an Arab citizen currently sits on Israel's supreme court, and that the Arab population of Israel is represented by multiple parties in Israel's parliament? This despite the fact that these parties constantly work to undermine the security if Israel. How many Arab and Muslim-majority countries offer such protections to their minorities? Egypt, which incessantly harasses its Coptic Christian minority? Iran, which is infamous in its persecution of Kurds, Yazidis, Baha'i (whose beautiful headquarters is in the Israeli city of Haifa, I might add, due to their persecution in their native Iran), and homosexuals, just to name a few. Saudi Arabia, where women must be escorted in public by a male relative and are forbidden from driving? Or perhaps Jordan, whose citizenry is over 70% Palestinian yet is run by the small Hashemite clan? If the council members’ decision was truly driven by a concern for the oppressed and downtrodden, and not by blatant anti-Semitism, your city would have boycotted all of these countries long ago.
I am certain that as part of their history lesson the city council members also learned that there never has been an independent political entity in what was the Palestinian Mandate except for ancient Israel and the modern State of Israel. For 2,000 years the region was simply a neglected backwater of various empires, except for a short period when your European brothers came over and killed as many native Jews as possible.
One wonders why the creation of an Arab entity in the heart of the Jewish homeland is more important to Reykjavik than, for example, the creation of a state for the 20 million Kurds that are repressed by their host nations. One wonders why the Icelandic people bear such ill-will toward the Jews. When have the Jews ever caused any harm to the people or country of Iceland? In fact, when has the average Icelander ever even encountered a Jew? Surely, despite age-old claims that the Jews control financial institutions, you don't blame them for your country's economic crisis in 2008, do you?
Iceland is a small country of 100,250 square km surrounded by water, with no natural enemies. Israel is an even smaller country of only 20,330 square km surrounded by hundreds of millions of people who openly and proudly proclaim that they will never rest until Israel and all of its Jewish inhabitants are destroyed. It faces incessant rocket attacks from its southern border with the Gaza Strip and from its northern border with Hezbollah-controlled southern Lebanon. With the civil-war raging in Syria (which, mind you, has killed 300,000 people and displaced over 12 million people in 4 years, compared to about 100,000 deaths from 1945 until now in the Arab-Israeli conflict), and potential instability in neighboring Jordan due to the ISIS threat, does it really make sense for Israel to make itself even more vulnerable than it already is by allowing a human-rights abusing, terrorist-supporting entity to spring up right in its own backyard?
Despite your best efforts to malign this oft-persecuted people, my friends and I will still travel to Iceland next week. We debated returning the favor by boycotting Reykjavik, but we decided that we will not let a few hateful members of the city council ruin what will undoubtedly be a great experience for the four of us. We refuse to blame an entire nation for what we feel is a misguided and morally bankrupt decision on the part of several of its leaders. Instead, we will enjoy all that Reykjavik and Iceland have to offer, while remaining strong in our belief that Israel is unworthy of the constant and vicious opprobrium that it receives not only from Iceland, but from all across Europe. Though I will still come to your city and country, I will be very careful not to discuss my personal background while I am there. You have made it very clear that Reykjavik is an unwelcoming city not just towards Israelis, but towards all Jews, regardless of their country of origin. It is a shame, and also a bit ironic, that in claiming to support human rights and dignity, the city of Reykjavik is sparing no effort to take away the dignity of the Jewish people. Fortunately, the Jews are a strong people, and we will not be cowed by false morality from the anti-Semitic bastion that is Europe. Had your council members paid a bit more attention to their history lessons, they would have already known this too."
Sunday, September 13, 2015
And Yet More Comments on the Iranian Nuclear Deal
The Iranian nuclear deal is arguably the most significant treaty entered into by the USA in decades. Yet Obama and the Democrats did not think it was of enough significance to actually allow a vote on it in the US Senate. 42 Democratic Senators blocked cloture, which resulted in not allowing a measure on the deal to come to a vote.
Of course, Obama had no interest in ever allowing input from the elected leaders of the people of the United States. He immediately took this deal to the UN for a vote of approval there, the UN being the entity he most relates to - not the Congress. When he wanted the most significant piece of domestic legislation passed - the ACA - he did have to go to Congress, and only succeeded in passing that on a single party vote after having to bribe some Senators in his own party to vote for it.
Perhaps the most cogent comment on this deal came from Senator Ted Cruz, who noted that the deal will free up over $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets, with billions likely going to terrorist groups who will use that money to have the wherewithal to murder Americans, Israelis and Europeans. Cruz: "If it (the deal) goes through the Obama Administration will become, quite literally, the world's leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism." Imagine that.
On the 9/9/15 O'Reilly Factor, they put up poll results from Pew for the period 9/3-9/7/15 regarding the deal. Only 21% of Americans approve of the deal, with 49% disapproving, and 30% saying they don't know. Apparently, a number of Democratic Senators who were holdouts were persuaded to support the deal when China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany said they would not reopen negotiations regardless of what the US does. So I would ask who those Senators just who is it that they believe they represent - the American people, or the Chinese, Russians and Europeans. Clearly, Obama has convinced his party that the world is a better place when other countries make decisions that affect the American people.
In his Talking Points memo of 9/9/15, O'Reilly said this: "Europe's refugee crisis is happening because the United States and Western Europe have retreated from the Middle East. Once President Obama removed all U.S. forces from Iraq, ISIS moved in and chaos broke out. The President doesn't acknowledge that his disengagement policy has led to thousands of deaths and Europe's refugee catastrophe."
But what does the refugee crisis have to do with the Iranian nuke deal? Plenty. Remember, Obama will not only side with Muslims - it is where his gut takes him - but with the most radical and extreme Muslims. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood; he withdrew from Iraq which allowed for the growth of ISIS, and then has engaged in a halfhearted effort to eliminate ISIS; and is releasing over $100 billion to the Mullahs while allowing them to keep their nuclear enrichment capability and obtain ICBMs.
This is Obama's foreign policy. Allow other countries to become more powerful, while weakening the US military. Both approaches have the result of making it more difficult for the US to assert itself anywhere in the world under future presidents. If the Ayatollahs have nukes - and to Obama's mind why shouldn't they if we do - then so be it. If ISIS ends up controlling Iraq, then so be it. His view of the world will always take precedence for him over any negative consequences that are likely to result.
So if hundreds of thousands or millions of Christians are displaced from their centuries old homes throughout the Middle East, and some are even slaughtered, so be it. If hundreds of thousands of Muslims are also displaced, and also killed, so be it. And if Israel should get wiped off the map by Iran, so be it.
After the Democrats successfully blocked any vote in the Senate on the deal, the White House proudly issued this statement: "Today, the Senate took an historic step forward and voted to enable the United States to work with our international partners to enable the implementation of the comprehensive, long-term deal that will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." The first lie is the "historic vote." It was only a vote to block cloture. A majority of both the House and Senate oppose the deal. The second lie is that Iran will be blocked from getting a nuke. Obama believes that as much as he believed "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
Obama wanted to be a consequential President. There is no doubt that he has been. Now, the rest of us, and the the rest of the world, will have to live with the consequences of his Presidency for many years to come.
Of course, Obama had no interest in ever allowing input from the elected leaders of the people of the United States. He immediately took this deal to the UN for a vote of approval there, the UN being the entity he most relates to - not the Congress. When he wanted the most significant piece of domestic legislation passed - the ACA - he did have to go to Congress, and only succeeded in passing that on a single party vote after having to bribe some Senators in his own party to vote for it.
Perhaps the most cogent comment on this deal came from Senator Ted Cruz, who noted that the deal will free up over $100 billion in frozen Iranian assets, with billions likely going to terrorist groups who will use that money to have the wherewithal to murder Americans, Israelis and Europeans. Cruz: "If it (the deal) goes through the Obama Administration will become, quite literally, the world's leading financier of radical Islamic terrorism." Imagine that.
On the 9/9/15 O'Reilly Factor, they put up poll results from Pew for the period 9/3-9/7/15 regarding the deal. Only 21% of Americans approve of the deal, with 49% disapproving, and 30% saying they don't know. Apparently, a number of Democratic Senators who were holdouts were persuaded to support the deal when China, Russia, Britain, France and Germany said they would not reopen negotiations regardless of what the US does. So I would ask who those Senators just who is it that they believe they represent - the American people, or the Chinese, Russians and Europeans. Clearly, Obama has convinced his party that the world is a better place when other countries make decisions that affect the American people.
In his Talking Points memo of 9/9/15, O'Reilly said this: "Europe's refugee crisis is happening because the United States and Western Europe have retreated from the Middle East. Once President Obama removed all U.S. forces from Iraq, ISIS moved in and chaos broke out. The President doesn't acknowledge that his disengagement policy has led to thousands of deaths and Europe's refugee catastrophe."
But what does the refugee crisis have to do with the Iranian nuke deal? Plenty. Remember, Obama will not only side with Muslims - it is where his gut takes him - but with the most radical and extreme Muslims. He supported the Muslim Brotherhood; he withdrew from Iraq which allowed for the growth of ISIS, and then has engaged in a halfhearted effort to eliminate ISIS; and is releasing over $100 billion to the Mullahs while allowing them to keep their nuclear enrichment capability and obtain ICBMs.
This is Obama's foreign policy. Allow other countries to become more powerful, while weakening the US military. Both approaches have the result of making it more difficult for the US to assert itself anywhere in the world under future presidents. If the Ayatollahs have nukes - and to Obama's mind why shouldn't they if we do - then so be it. If ISIS ends up controlling Iraq, then so be it. His view of the world will always take precedence for him over any negative consequences that are likely to result.
So if hundreds of thousands or millions of Christians are displaced from their centuries old homes throughout the Middle East, and some are even slaughtered, so be it. If hundreds of thousands of Muslims are also displaced, and also killed, so be it. And if Israel should get wiped off the map by Iran, so be it.
After the Democrats successfully blocked any vote in the Senate on the deal, the White House proudly issued this statement: "Today, the Senate took an historic step forward and voted to enable the United States to work with our international partners to enable the implementation of the comprehensive, long-term deal that will prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." The first lie is the "historic vote." It was only a vote to block cloture. A majority of both the House and Senate oppose the deal. The second lie is that Iran will be blocked from getting a nuke. Obama believes that as much as he believed "if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor."
Obama wanted to be a consequential President. There is no doubt that he has been. Now, the rest of us, and the the rest of the world, will have to live with the consequences of his Presidency for many years to come.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)