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
Monday, February 9, 2015
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.
Sunday, January 25, 2015
Now Obama Cares About Rules
Last week, President Obama hosted British Prime Minister David Cameron. Cameron, in turn, lobbied several US Senators in an effort to persuade them not to pass any further sanctions against Iran. I have no doubt that Obama requested the lobbying effort by Cameron.
On Wednesday last, Speaker of the House John Boehner announced he had invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress. Netanyahu accepted, with the White House complaining that such invitations to foreign leaders are to be run through the White House and/or State Department. White House spokesperson Josh Earnest called it a breach of diplomatic protocol. Never mind that Cameron's lobbying was also a breach of protocol.
Boehner defended his invitation to Netanyahu, noting that Obama had "papered over" the Iranian nuclear threat. Said Obama in his State of the Union address: "Our diplomacy is at work with respect to Iran, where, for the first time in a decade, we've halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material." Obama is so interested in making a deal with Iran, that I cannot help but wonder if he believes his own falsehoods.
To recap, negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program have been ongoing for well over a decade. Initially, the Europeans (Britain, France and Germany) were taking the lead with the US consulting in the background. More recently, we have the 5+1 (US, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany), with the US taking the lead. During all this time Iran has sought one extension after the next, all the while building nuclear reactors and centrifuges that can produce weapons grade uranium. And Israel recently reported that Iran has developed yet another long range missile - capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
So let's be clear, Obama just wants a deal - any deal - so he can say he was the one that made it happen. This is no different than Obama wanting to be the one to announce a deal between Israel and the Palestinians - even if the deal threatened Israel's very existence. He just wanted to make a deal. And notice just whose side he is on in these proposed deals - the Muslim Palestinians and the Muslim Ayatollahs.
Does anyone else think it ironic that Russia is involved in these negotiations with Iran? Russia was instrumental in helping Iran develop their nuclear program, and is apparently on board with the construction of two additional nuclear reactors. (As reported in the 1/21/15 IBD.) And the German magazine Der Spiegel reported that Iran is helping Syria build an underground nuclear facility. (From the same IBD article.) Recall that Israel took out a Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007. This is the same Iran that, with their proxy in Hezbollah, recently threatened to launch a major attack on Israel.
So while Obama lies about the "progress" made with Iran, Netanyahu has spoken out against the threat of Iranian nukes at every opportunity - in Israel, at the UN, and in the US. But Obama wants his deal. Based on the "breach of protocol" noted above, Secretary of State John Kerry said this might affect his support for Israel. Meanwhile, an unnamed senior Administration official threatened Israel with this: "Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price." Is this what any of you who voted for Obama hoped for - enabling the Iranian Ayatollahs to get nukes while threatening our key ally in the Middle East, Israel?
Let me be clear, it is not just Republicans like Boehner, and Israeli leader Netanyahu, who think that Obama is either being played the fool, or allowing himself to be, by the Iranians. Obama's Deputy Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, recently testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and even admitted that Iran has been "unwilling to come clean" about their nuclear program. But it was the ranking Democrat, Senator Robert Menendez, N.J., who said to Blinken: "I have to be honest with you, the more I hear from the Administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran."
On the other hand, I fully acknowledge that there are those on the Republican side who are offended by the breach of protocol. Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter to President Reagan, is one who is opposed to the Netanyahu invitation and visit. (See her opinion piece in the weekend edition, 1/24-1/25/15, of the WSJ.) This writer, however, comes down on the side of George Will. On Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace (who is also opposed to Netanyahu coming), Will noted that Boehner is head of a coequal branch of government, with their own foreign policy responsibilities. He pointed out that Israel lives in a dangerous neighborhood, and in 726 days when Obama is out of office, Israel will still be in a dangerous neighborhood.
As for the breach of protocol, Will noted that Netanyahu was not going to worry about showing manners to Obama, who has such bad manners himself. Recall that Obama left a meeting with Netanyahu in the White House, while he (Obama) went upstairs to the residence to have dinner with his family. And last year, another unnamed Administration official, referred to Netanyahu as a "chickenshit." Obama has been equally disdainful of Congress, so no surprise that Boehner wants to return the favor.
One last point. Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution provides that the President "...shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." But the White House has made it clear that they do not intend to present any Iranian deal to the Senate for their approval, demonstrating yet again Obama's disdain for the Constitutional separation of powers. Obama will simply call any such agreement something other than a "treaty."
But as noted on Wikipedia, "A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same."
So let Obama stew over the alleged breach of protocol, while he shows his contempt for Boehner, Netanyahu and the Constitution. Interesting how selective Obama is when it comes to rules.
On Wednesday last, Speaker of the House John Boehner announced he had invited Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu to speak to a joint session of Congress. Netanyahu accepted, with the White House complaining that such invitations to foreign leaders are to be run through the White House and/or State Department. White House spokesperson Josh Earnest called it a breach of diplomatic protocol. Never mind that Cameron's lobbying was also a breach of protocol.
Boehner defended his invitation to Netanyahu, noting that Obama had "papered over" the Iranian nuclear threat. Said Obama in his State of the Union address: "Our diplomacy is at work with respect to Iran, where, for the first time in a decade, we've halted the progress of its nuclear program and reduced its stockpile of nuclear material." Obama is so interested in making a deal with Iran, that I cannot help but wonder if he believes his own falsehoods.
To recap, negotiations with Iran over their nuclear program have been ongoing for well over a decade. Initially, the Europeans (Britain, France and Germany) were taking the lead with the US consulting in the background. More recently, we have the 5+1 (US, Britain, France, Russia, China and Germany), with the US taking the lead. During all this time Iran has sought one extension after the next, all the while building nuclear reactors and centrifuges that can produce weapons grade uranium. And Israel recently reported that Iran has developed yet another long range missile - capable of carrying nuclear warheads.
So let's be clear, Obama just wants a deal - any deal - so he can say he was the one that made it happen. This is no different than Obama wanting to be the one to announce a deal between Israel and the Palestinians - even if the deal threatened Israel's very existence. He just wanted to make a deal. And notice just whose side he is on in these proposed deals - the Muslim Palestinians and the Muslim Ayatollahs.
Does anyone else think it ironic that Russia is involved in these negotiations with Iran? Russia was instrumental in helping Iran develop their nuclear program, and is apparently on board with the construction of two additional nuclear reactors. (As reported in the 1/21/15 IBD.) And the German magazine Der Spiegel reported that Iran is helping Syria build an underground nuclear facility. (From the same IBD article.) Recall that Israel took out a Syrian nuclear reactor in 2007. This is the same Iran that, with their proxy in Hezbollah, recently threatened to launch a major attack on Israel.
So while Obama lies about the "progress" made with Iran, Netanyahu has spoken out against the threat of Iranian nukes at every opportunity - in Israel, at the UN, and in the US. But Obama wants his deal. Based on the "breach of protocol" noted above, Secretary of State John Kerry said this might affect his support for Israel. Meanwhile, an unnamed senior Administration official threatened Israel with this: "Netanyahu ought to remember that President Obama has a year and a half left to his presidency, and that there will be a price." Is this what any of you who voted for Obama hoped for - enabling the Iranian Ayatollahs to get nukes while threatening our key ally in the Middle East, Israel?
Let me be clear, it is not just Republicans like Boehner, and Israeli leader Netanyahu, who think that Obama is either being played the fool, or allowing himself to be, by the Iranians. Obama's Deputy Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, recently testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and even admitted that Iran has been "unwilling to come clean" about their nuclear program. But it was the ranking Democrat, Senator Robert Menendez, N.J., who said to Blinken: "I have to be honest with you, the more I hear from the Administration and its quotes, the more it sounds like talking points that come straight out of Tehran."
On the other hand, I fully acknowledge that there are those on the Republican side who are offended by the breach of protocol. Peggy Noonan, former speechwriter to President Reagan, is one who is opposed to the Netanyahu invitation and visit. (See her opinion piece in the weekend edition, 1/24-1/25/15, of the WSJ.) This writer, however, comes down on the side of George Will. On Fox News Sunday with Chris Wallace (who is also opposed to Netanyahu coming), Will noted that Boehner is head of a coequal branch of government, with their own foreign policy responsibilities. He pointed out that Israel lives in a dangerous neighborhood, and in 726 days when Obama is out of office, Israel will still be in a dangerous neighborhood.
As for the breach of protocol, Will noted that Netanyahu was not going to worry about showing manners to Obama, who has such bad manners himself. Recall that Obama left a meeting with Netanyahu in the White House, while he (Obama) went upstairs to the residence to have dinner with his family. And last year, another unnamed Administration official, referred to Netanyahu as a "chickenshit." Obama has been equally disdainful of Congress, so no surprise that Boehner wants to return the favor.
One last point. Article II, Section 2 of the US Constitution provides that the President "...shall have power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur..." But the White House has made it clear that they do not intend to present any Iranian deal to the Senate for their approval, demonstrating yet again Obama's disdain for the Constitutional separation of powers. Obama will simply call any such agreement something other than a "treaty."
But as noted on Wikipedia, "A treaty may also be known as an (international) agreement, protocol, covenant, convention, pact or exchange of letters, among other terms. Regardless of terminology, all these forms of agreements are, under international law, equally considered treaties and the rules are the same."
So let Obama stew over the alleged breach of protocol, while he shows his contempt for Boehner, Netanyahu and the Constitution. Interesting how selective Obama is when it comes to rules.
Friday, January 16, 2015
The Paris Massacre - Part II
This past Sunday, 44 world leaders joined 1.5 million French citizens in a march through Paris in support of free speech and against the Islamic terrorists. Another 1.5 million French citizens were said to have marched in other cities throughout France. It was quite an impressive showing. But the leader of the free world? He could not make it.
We've heard all the excuses. It takes a lot of planning for the President to travel somewhere. There are security concerns, and so on. And I am sure he did not want to miss the NFL divisional playoffs. Democrat strategist Doug Schoen was so upset by Obama's absence, that he said that Obama "morally abdicated his place as the leader of the free world." So, really, why didn't Obama just go? Let's start at the very beginning - a very good place to start.
Recall Obama's father was a Muslim who hated the European colonial powers. Obama's first call from the White House in 2009 - to Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority. His first speech? To the Muslim world from Cairo, after inviting the then-banned Muslim Brotherhood to attend. Remember Obama bowing to the Saudi King?
Obama has banned the use of the words "radical Islam," "Islamic terror" and so on from use in his Administration. When a radical Islamic soldier murdered 13 people and wounded dozens of others at Fort Hood in 2009, remember what Obama called it? An act of "workplace violence." And one of my favorites among the many Obama lies: "ISIL (aka ISIS) is not Islamic." And notice he is full steam ahead in releasing the terrorists held at Guantanamo.
Still not convinced about where Obama has his allegiances? Here is what he said at the UN General Assembly in September, 2012: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." And what did Charlie Hebdo do? Make fun of the prophet of Islam. Anyone think Obama would stand up and defend that? You think some notion of "free speech" is more important to him than his ideology? Then you are dreaming.
So, what's to be done about the threat of radical Islam? It is a two-pronged approach. One approach must come from within Islam, and was recently expressed by none other than Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. "It's inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma (Muslim world) to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world...Is it possible that 1.6 billion (Muslims) should want to kill the rest of the world's inhabitants - that is 7 billion - so that they themselves may live?" Obama is no fan of al-Sisi, as he overthrew the radical terror group that had been elected to lead Egypt - the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Sisi went on to say that Islam needed a "religious revolution." Important words; and let's hope we hear more of the same from other Muslim leaders.
What else should be done? I think Retired Colonel Ralph Peters, a Fox News commentator, got this part right. He said that we need to kill radical Islamic extremists everywhere around the world. Of course, no such action will be taken by this President. Rather, this President has the US in retreat. Retreat from Iraq, retreat from Afghanistan, closing Guantanamo, reducing the size and strength of our military. The result is that ISIS, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and Boko Haram and the like, are taking over ever growing swaths of land. This is land from which they will train terrorists to be able to go to Western countries - including the US - and carry out further attacks.
Some of my liberal Jewish friends, having voted for Obama, are now sick of him. But how will they vote next time? Will gay marriage, abortion, immigration and the environment carry the day over self-survival? Because we need to be honest. While there is no guarantee that a Republican President will restore our military and do what is needed to go on the offensive and defeat radical Islam, we do know that no Democrat (Hillary or any other) is up to the task.
One last point. Is it time? Is it time for the Jews of France, in particular, and of Europe in general, to leave? This is a difficult subject. But at what point did some Jews in Germany see the proverbial handwriting on the wall - and leave to save their families. Yes, there are differences. No country is engaging in genocide as Germany did during the Holocaust. The Times of Israel reported that 45% of Jews in Britain fear they have no future in that country; and 58% are concerned there is no long-term future for the Jews anywhere in Europe. In a related poll, it was found that 45% of Britains held at least one anti-Semitic view. (Poll results from the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism.)
Was Netanyahu right in calling for Jews to come home to Israel? Please let me hear from you.
We've heard all the excuses. It takes a lot of planning for the President to travel somewhere. There are security concerns, and so on. And I am sure he did not want to miss the NFL divisional playoffs. Democrat strategist Doug Schoen was so upset by Obama's absence, that he said that Obama "morally abdicated his place as the leader of the free world." So, really, why didn't Obama just go? Let's start at the very beginning - a very good place to start.
Recall Obama's father was a Muslim who hated the European colonial powers. Obama's first call from the White House in 2009 - to Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority. His first speech? To the Muslim world from Cairo, after inviting the then-banned Muslim Brotherhood to attend. Remember Obama bowing to the Saudi King?
Obama has banned the use of the words "radical Islam," "Islamic terror" and so on from use in his Administration. When a radical Islamic soldier murdered 13 people and wounded dozens of others at Fort Hood in 2009, remember what Obama called it? An act of "workplace violence." And one of my favorites among the many Obama lies: "ISIL (aka ISIS) is not Islamic." And notice he is full steam ahead in releasing the terrorists held at Guantanamo.
Still not convinced about where Obama has his allegiances? Here is what he said at the UN General Assembly in September, 2012: "The future must not belong to those who slander the prophet of Islam." And what did Charlie Hebdo do? Make fun of the prophet of Islam. Anyone think Obama would stand up and defend that? You think some notion of "free speech" is more important to him than his ideology? Then you are dreaming.
So, what's to be done about the threat of radical Islam? It is a two-pronged approach. One approach must come from within Islam, and was recently expressed by none other than Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi. "It's inconceivable that the thinking that we hold most sacred should cause the entire umma (Muslim world) to be a source of anxiety, danger, killing and destruction for the rest of the world...Is it possible that 1.6 billion (Muslims) should want to kill the rest of the world's inhabitants - that is 7 billion - so that they themselves may live?" Obama is no fan of al-Sisi, as he overthrew the radical terror group that had been elected to lead Egypt - the Muslim Brotherhood. Al-Sisi went on to say that Islam needed a "religious revolution." Important words; and let's hope we hear more of the same from other Muslim leaders.
What else should be done? I think Retired Colonel Ralph Peters, a Fox News commentator, got this part right. He said that we need to kill radical Islamic extremists everywhere around the world. Of course, no such action will be taken by this President. Rather, this President has the US in retreat. Retreat from Iraq, retreat from Afghanistan, closing Guantanamo, reducing the size and strength of our military. The result is that ISIS, Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, and Boko Haram and the like, are taking over ever growing swaths of land. This is land from which they will train terrorists to be able to go to Western countries - including the US - and carry out further attacks.
Some of my liberal Jewish friends, having voted for Obama, are now sick of him. But how will they vote next time? Will gay marriage, abortion, immigration and the environment carry the day over self-survival? Because we need to be honest. While there is no guarantee that a Republican President will restore our military and do what is needed to go on the offensive and defeat radical Islam, we do know that no Democrat (Hillary or any other) is up to the task.
One last point. Is it time? Is it time for the Jews of France, in particular, and of Europe in general, to leave? This is a difficult subject. But at what point did some Jews in Germany see the proverbial handwriting on the wall - and leave to save their families. Yes, there are differences. No country is engaging in genocide as Germany did during the Holocaust. The Times of Israel reported that 45% of Jews in Britain fear they have no future in that country; and 58% are concerned there is no long-term future for the Jews anywhere in Europe. In a related poll, it was found that 45% of Britains held at least one anti-Semitic view. (Poll results from the Campaign Against Anti-Semitism.)
Was Netanyahu right in calling for Jews to come home to Israel? Please let me hear from you.
The Paris Massacre - Part I
On January 7, 2015, three Islamic terrorists murdered 17 people in Paris - at the offices of the satirical magazine Charlie Hebdo, at a kosher market and on the street where a French policewoman was killed. As outrageous as these attacks were, they were - sadly - not a new occurrence. However, much can be learned about others perceptions of what occurred and why.
Howard Dean, former head of the Democratic National Committee, had this to say: "I stopped calling these people Muslim terrorists. They're about as Muslim as I am." And: "I think ISIS is a cult. Not an Islamic Cult." The lengths to which liberals will go to avoid telling the truth is more than just sad and moronic. It is dangerous. The whole world knows about radical Islamic terror. But Dean and Obama will not say it. Were the Germans Nazis? Hitler said he was. Hmmm.
The USA Today recently had this headline: "Terror attack sparks fears among French Muslims." Once again, the liberal need to make victims out of the same group that gave us the perpetrators. The liberal media did the same thing after the 9/11 attacks here. The USA Today quoted a 31 year old Muslim who said he disagreed with what the terrorists did. But then he added this: "But I also feel that freedom of speech can't justify everything and I was hurt when Charlie Hebdo published drawings of the prophet Mohammed." You know what, I was more hurt by the brutal murders of fellow Jews and other fellow human beings. Hurt by drawings? Grow up, grow a pair, and learn to cope with it. That should be the worst that life throws your way.
It was both amusing and disturbing to watch Obama's spokesperson Josh Earnest discuss what occurred in Paris. He was tripping over words in a convoluted fashion given his boss's instructions to never say "Islamic terror" or "radical Islamic terrorists." Rather, he told the White House press corps that it was "individual extremists" who use Islam to justify their actions. If Josh Earnest had any personal integrity he would have quit before spewing such blatant nonsense. I will say, though, what a coincidence that tens - if not hundreds - of thousands of "individuals" all over the world have taken the same murderous path using the same ideology and terminology to describe their actions and words. The odds must be one in a trillion. Amazing.
The New York Times opined in an editorial: "Perhaps the greatest danger in the wake of the massacres is that more Europeans will come to the conclusion that all Muslim immigrants on the continent are carriers of a great and mortal threat." The greatest danger? How about the greatest morons? The greatest danger is that Europe again becomes/remains complacent in the face of an ever growing danger to its people from radical Islamists.
One Saudi cleric said this: "No sane person, regardless of doctrine, religion or faith, accepts his beliefs being ridiculed." Really? Try being a conservative/Republican in the USA and picking up almost any mainstream newspaper - if you really want to see ridicule. The cleric's words tell you all you need to know about the idea of "free speech" in the Muslim world.
And, once again we heard from the former worst President (now second worst thanks to Obama) Jimmy Carter. In speaking with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, Carter was asked what may have prompted the Paris massacre. "Well, one of the origins for it is the Palestinian problem. And this aggravates people who are affiliated in any way with the Arab people who live in the West Bank and Gaza, what they are doing now - what's being done to them. So I think that's a part of it."
So, Jimmy, first let's blame the Jews. Can't go wrong there, can you - you anti-Semitic bastard. Second, let's excuse these murders because, if the Islamic terrorists are in fact mad at the Israelis, that gives them every reason to kill Frenchmen and Jews in France who have absolutely nothing to do with Israeli policy.
Howard Dean, former head of the Democratic National Committee, had this to say: "I stopped calling these people Muslim terrorists. They're about as Muslim as I am." And: "I think ISIS is a cult. Not an Islamic Cult." The lengths to which liberals will go to avoid telling the truth is more than just sad and moronic. It is dangerous. The whole world knows about radical Islamic terror. But Dean and Obama will not say it. Were the Germans Nazis? Hitler said he was. Hmmm.
The USA Today recently had this headline: "Terror attack sparks fears among French Muslims." Once again, the liberal need to make victims out of the same group that gave us the perpetrators. The liberal media did the same thing after the 9/11 attacks here. The USA Today quoted a 31 year old Muslim who said he disagreed with what the terrorists did. But then he added this: "But I also feel that freedom of speech can't justify everything and I was hurt when Charlie Hebdo published drawings of the prophet Mohammed." You know what, I was more hurt by the brutal murders of fellow Jews and other fellow human beings. Hurt by drawings? Grow up, grow a pair, and learn to cope with it. That should be the worst that life throws your way.
It was both amusing and disturbing to watch Obama's spokesperson Josh Earnest discuss what occurred in Paris. He was tripping over words in a convoluted fashion given his boss's instructions to never say "Islamic terror" or "radical Islamic terrorists." Rather, he told the White House press corps that it was "individual extremists" who use Islam to justify their actions. If Josh Earnest had any personal integrity he would have quit before spewing such blatant nonsense. I will say, though, what a coincidence that tens - if not hundreds - of thousands of "individuals" all over the world have taken the same murderous path using the same ideology and terminology to describe their actions and words. The odds must be one in a trillion. Amazing.
The New York Times opined in an editorial: "Perhaps the greatest danger in the wake of the massacres is that more Europeans will come to the conclusion that all Muslim immigrants on the continent are carriers of a great and mortal threat." The greatest danger? How about the greatest morons? The greatest danger is that Europe again becomes/remains complacent in the face of an ever growing danger to its people from radical Islamists.
One Saudi cleric said this: "No sane person, regardless of doctrine, religion or faith, accepts his beliefs being ridiculed." Really? Try being a conservative/Republican in the USA and picking up almost any mainstream newspaper - if you really want to see ridicule. The cleric's words tell you all you need to know about the idea of "free speech" in the Muslim world.
And, once again we heard from the former worst President (now second worst thanks to Obama) Jimmy Carter. In speaking with Jon Stewart on The Daily Show, Carter was asked what may have prompted the Paris massacre. "Well, one of the origins for it is the Palestinian problem. And this aggravates people who are affiliated in any way with the Arab people who live in the West Bank and Gaza, what they are doing now - what's being done to them. So I think that's a part of it."
So, Jimmy, first let's blame the Jews. Can't go wrong there, can you - you anti-Semitic bastard. Second, let's excuse these murders because, if the Islamic terrorists are in fact mad at the Israelis, that gives them every reason to kill Frenchmen and Jews in France who have absolutely nothing to do with Israeli policy.
Sunday, January 4, 2015
New Year Reflections
The UN Security Council failed to pass Jordan's resolution establishing a Palestinian state based on the so-called 1967 borders, with Jerusalem as the capital. Passage requires 9 of the 15 members to vote in the affirmative, with none of the 5 permanent members having a veto power voting no. The measure received 8 votes in favor: France, Russia, China, Chile, Argentina, Jordan, Chad and Luxembourg. The 2 no votes were by the US and Australia. There were 5 abstentions: Great Britain, Lithuania, Nigeria, South Korea and Rwanda. The US vote was not technically a veto because the measure failed to garner the 9 votes needed for passage.
However, it is not likely that Obama will have much breathing room if he wishes to avoid use of the veto. As of January 1, 2015, Australia, Argentina, Luxembourg, South Korea and Rwanda are off the Council. Replacing them will be Spain, New Zealand, Venezuela, Angola and Malaysia. The newly constituted Council should easily come up with the 9 votes required for passage. Will Obama then exercise the veto?
The Jewish Agency of Israel reports that Israel had 26,500 new immigrants in 2014. That is a 32% increase from 2013, and a 10 year high. Of the 8640 that came from Western Europe, 7000 were from France. France, with their ever-growing Muslim population has become increasingly anti-Semitic, and too often violently so. The same France hoping to appease their Muslim population with their vote in favor a Palestinian state. The second largest group of immigrants came from the Ukraine, numbering 5840, which is also not surprising in light of what has been occurring there.
So I ask my fellow Jews who have no particular affinity for Israel: Where would all of these Jews find a safe haven if Israel did not exist?
Again, out of academia, another bizarre story. Apparently the President of Smith College said that "all lives matter;" the context being the recent controversial police killings of civilians. But, the politically correct slogan is "black lives matter." According to Thomas Sowell in the 1/2/14 IBD, the Smith President had to apologize for saying such a dastardly thing.
New York is no longer the third most populous state, after California and Texas. That distinction goes to Florida, with New York falling to fourth. I wonder if it has anything to do with the way New Yorkers are taxed. Their state income tax has a maximum 13.3% rate. Florida: no income tax. New York has the second highest corporate tax rate. Florida: "well below average." (From the 12/31/14 IBD.) And New York is a "forced union state," while Florida is a right to work state. But it would be wrong to blame liberal policies in New York for their loss of the number 3 spot. Remember, liberal policies never have negative consequences. They can't - because they feel so good.
Could it be? Did John Holdren, Obama's science and technology czar, really say that global warming caused by humans is helping to prevent us from having another ice age? That is what the 12/26/14 IBD has reported. After having a couple of weeks of morning temperatures in the 30s and even 20s, all I can say is bring back my global warming please!
So now we find out what Jonathan Gruber really thought about the ACA/Obamacare actually cutting costs. In yet another one of his comments that have come to light following passage of the ACA, Gruber said he wished that "President Obama could have stood up and said, 'You know, I don't know if this bill is going to control costs. It might, it might not.'" Well, Mr. Gruber, the President most certainly could have said that. But it would have required something neither you nor he is prone to do - tell the truth.
Who has not imagined that, given the billions of stars in the billions of galaxies in the universe, there must be some planets in some other solar systems supporting life. If a system has the right kind of star with a planet the right distance from that star - life! Or so it was thought. But then other factors were deemed necessary for life; at least 200 other factors, writes Eric Metaxas in the 12/26/14 Wall Street Journal.
Metaxas then quotes deceased British astronomer Fred Hoyle, who came up with the expression "Big Bang." But Hoyle later disapproved of his own theory, and notwithstanding his atheism said this: "...a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology...the numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." Intelligent design? Something to think about in this new year.
However, it is not likely that Obama will have much breathing room if he wishes to avoid use of the veto. As of January 1, 2015, Australia, Argentina, Luxembourg, South Korea and Rwanda are off the Council. Replacing them will be Spain, New Zealand, Venezuela, Angola and Malaysia. The newly constituted Council should easily come up with the 9 votes required for passage. Will Obama then exercise the veto?
The Jewish Agency of Israel reports that Israel had 26,500 new immigrants in 2014. That is a 32% increase from 2013, and a 10 year high. Of the 8640 that came from Western Europe, 7000 were from France. France, with their ever-growing Muslim population has become increasingly anti-Semitic, and too often violently so. The same France hoping to appease their Muslim population with their vote in favor a Palestinian state. The second largest group of immigrants came from the Ukraine, numbering 5840, which is also not surprising in light of what has been occurring there.
So I ask my fellow Jews who have no particular affinity for Israel: Where would all of these Jews find a safe haven if Israel did not exist?
Again, out of academia, another bizarre story. Apparently the President of Smith College said that "all lives matter;" the context being the recent controversial police killings of civilians. But, the politically correct slogan is "black lives matter." According to Thomas Sowell in the 1/2/14 IBD, the Smith President had to apologize for saying such a dastardly thing.
New York is no longer the third most populous state, after California and Texas. That distinction goes to Florida, with New York falling to fourth. I wonder if it has anything to do with the way New Yorkers are taxed. Their state income tax has a maximum 13.3% rate. Florida: no income tax. New York has the second highest corporate tax rate. Florida: "well below average." (From the 12/31/14 IBD.) And New York is a "forced union state," while Florida is a right to work state. But it would be wrong to blame liberal policies in New York for their loss of the number 3 spot. Remember, liberal policies never have negative consequences. They can't - because they feel so good.
Could it be? Did John Holdren, Obama's science and technology czar, really say that global warming caused by humans is helping to prevent us from having another ice age? That is what the 12/26/14 IBD has reported. After having a couple of weeks of morning temperatures in the 30s and even 20s, all I can say is bring back my global warming please!
So now we find out what Jonathan Gruber really thought about the ACA/Obamacare actually cutting costs. In yet another one of his comments that have come to light following passage of the ACA, Gruber said he wished that "President Obama could have stood up and said, 'You know, I don't know if this bill is going to control costs. It might, it might not.'" Well, Mr. Gruber, the President most certainly could have said that. But it would have required something neither you nor he is prone to do - tell the truth.
Who has not imagined that, given the billions of stars in the billions of galaxies in the universe, there must be some planets in some other solar systems supporting life. If a system has the right kind of star with a planet the right distance from that star - life! Or so it was thought. But then other factors were deemed necessary for life; at least 200 other factors, writes Eric Metaxas in the 12/26/14 Wall Street Journal.
Metaxas then quotes deceased British astronomer Fred Hoyle, who came up with the expression "Big Bang." But Hoyle later disapproved of his own theory, and notwithstanding his atheism said this: "...a common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a super-intellect has monkeyed with the physics, as well as with chemistry and biology...the numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question." Intelligent design? Something to think about in this new year.
Thursday, December 25, 2014
Year End Reflections - Part IV
A University of Michigan professor, who is the head of the communications department, wrote an article in which she announced: "I hate Republicans." Very professional, and very nice for any Republicans who might be enrolled in any of her classes. She also wrote this: "I can't stand the thought of having to spend the next two years watching Mitch McConnell, John Boehnor, Ted Cruz, Darrell Issa or any of the legion of other blowhards denying climate change, thwarting immigration reform or championing fetal 'personhood.'"
She left out gay marriage as one of the big issues for the left. And certainly no mention of the ongoing threats from Islamic terrorist groups or North Korea or Russia or China. No concern about Iran getting Nukes. No worries about the left's assault on the Constitution. And certainly no concern over jobs.
In California, the labor force participation rate, those working or actively seeking work, is down to 62.3%. That is the lowest it's been since the 1970s. In December, 2007 - pre-Obama - it was 65.9%. (Stats from the 12/4/14 LA Times.)
And I do not know how distraught Professor Douglas was over the recent brutal murders of 148 people, of which 132 were children, by the Taliban in Pakistan. Of course, the list of atrocities recently committed by Islamic terror groups could take up several paragraphs. Are these of concern to Professor Douglas?
Professor Susan Douglas must be just beside herself. Imagine, the Republicans control the Senate and have the largest Republican majority in the House since the WWII era. Republicans control 31 governor mansions. And Republicans control 67 of the 98 state houses in the country. (Nebraska has a nonpartisan unicameral legislature.) I think it's fair to say that the predictions of the Republican Party's demise were a tad premature. And I suspect Professor Douglas may not be getting much sleep during the next two years.
Out of Macalester College in Minnesota comes this story - the college is banning the use of words that may be hurtful to others and have an oppressive impact on culture. Words like "wuss" and "you guys." How about "swell" and "so's your old man?" (See "The Music Man.") It seems to me that we are raising a generation of fragile wusses. Oops.
Speaking of which, Columbia Law School announced that students could defer taking their finals if they were too traumatized by the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, and the lack of indictments of the police officers involved. That would be appropriate for family members or close friends of the Brown and Garner families. But everyone?
Getting back to Professor Douglas, it is clear she is in touch with the issues that people care about. Or is she? The 12/22/14 Investor's Business Daily reported on a poll conducted by the UN about what issues are of most concern to people worldwide. The top three - no, not climate change or abortion or immigration. The top three were: A good education, better health care and better job opportunities. Protection from crime and violence came in at number 6. Climate change was number 16.
Maybe Democrats took the shellacking they did because they focused on the wrong issues. "...Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them...and put all of our focus on the wrong problem - healthcare reform." That's not from me. That's from liberal Senator Charles Schumer. Something for Professor Douglas and other liberals to think about.
She left out gay marriage as one of the big issues for the left. And certainly no mention of the ongoing threats from Islamic terrorist groups or North Korea or Russia or China. No concern about Iran getting Nukes. No worries about the left's assault on the Constitution. And certainly no concern over jobs.
In California, the labor force participation rate, those working or actively seeking work, is down to 62.3%. That is the lowest it's been since the 1970s. In December, 2007 - pre-Obama - it was 65.9%. (Stats from the 12/4/14 LA Times.)
And I do not know how distraught Professor Douglas was over the recent brutal murders of 148 people, of which 132 were children, by the Taliban in Pakistan. Of course, the list of atrocities recently committed by Islamic terror groups could take up several paragraphs. Are these of concern to Professor Douglas?
Professor Susan Douglas must be just beside herself. Imagine, the Republicans control the Senate and have the largest Republican majority in the House since the WWII era. Republicans control 31 governor mansions. And Republicans control 67 of the 98 state houses in the country. (Nebraska has a nonpartisan unicameral legislature.) I think it's fair to say that the predictions of the Republican Party's demise were a tad premature. And I suspect Professor Douglas may not be getting much sleep during the next two years.
Out of Macalester College in Minnesota comes this story - the college is banning the use of words that may be hurtful to others and have an oppressive impact on culture. Words like "wuss" and "you guys." How about "swell" and "so's your old man?" (See "The Music Man.") It seems to me that we are raising a generation of fragile wusses. Oops.
Speaking of which, Columbia Law School announced that students could defer taking their finals if they were too traumatized by the deaths of Michael Brown and Eric Garner, and the lack of indictments of the police officers involved. That would be appropriate for family members or close friends of the Brown and Garner families. But everyone?
Getting back to Professor Douglas, it is clear she is in touch with the issues that people care about. Or is she? The 12/22/14 Investor's Business Daily reported on a poll conducted by the UN about what issues are of most concern to people worldwide. The top three - no, not climate change or abortion or immigration. The top three were: A good education, better health care and better job opportunities. Protection from crime and violence came in at number 6. Climate change was number 16.
Maybe Democrats took the shellacking they did because they focused on the wrong issues. "...Democrats blew the opportunity the American people gave them...and put all of our focus on the wrong problem - healthcare reform." That's not from me. That's from liberal Senator Charles Schumer. Something for Professor Douglas and other liberals to think about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)