Why I Do Not Support a Two State Solution Between Israel and the Palestinians

One need not go back very far in time to see why a two state solution between Israel and the Palestinians is not sensible. As I fully understand that not even all Jews see either the religious or historical basis for Israel maintaining full control over Judea and Samaria (the West Bank), I will show why, even from a practical point of view, such a two state arrangement makes no sense.

Last month, both Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyhu spoke at the UN General Assembly annual meeting. After bemoaning the "notorious Balfour Declaration" of 1917, Abbas claimed that it "paved the road for the Nakba (catastrophe) of Palestinian people and their dispossession and displacement from their land." At the end of the Great War Allied forces had captured much of the Middle East, which had been under the control of the Ottoman Empire for hundreds of years. Britain had control of the area known as Palestine. In 1917 British Foreign Minister Arthur Balfour announced "His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people..."

Palestine was a geographic area, not a country, which had also been the biblical and historical Jewish homeland. Israel did exist as a country there - 2000 years ago. So, the first question is, if the Palestinians view the establishment of the modern state of Israel as a "catastrophe," how does that make a two state solution feasible? After several decades of control, the British turned over their "Mandate" area of Palestine to the UN, which in 1947 voted to partition the land into a Jewish state and an Arab state. Abbas: "Israeli forces seized more land than that allotted to Israel..."

Seized more land? In 1948, following the 1947 vote for partition, the tiny State of Israel declared their independence. The very next day at least five Arab countries attacked the new state, in the Arabs first effort to wipe Israel off the map. Israelis were greatly outnumbered and outgunned. But a miracle occurred (with G-d's help, perhaps) and the tiny country won their war for independence. And yes, at the end of that war in 1949, Israel did control more land than the original partition granted them.

But Israel did not "seize" that land. The Jews were willing to accept the tiny bit of land allotted to them by the partition. But the Arabs announced before the UN vote that they would never accept the existence of a Jewish state. So, the second question is, in what ways have the Arabs shown a change in their attitudes towards Israel since 1948? By lying about Israel "seizing" land, as opposed to being attacked and winning? By the constant wars and terrorist attacks against Israel since 1948? By the Palestinians launching thousands of rockets and missiles into civilian areas of Israel? By Abbas repeatedly saying that not one single Jew may live in a new state of Palestine, while over a million Arabs live in the State of Israel? Or by Abbas still referring to Israel's existence as the Palestinian Nakba?

Abbas went on to engage in more lies by claiming that "Israel reneged on the (Oslo) agreements it signed..." Here is the third question: when the Palestinians consistently reject their own state as long as Israel still exists, how is a two state solution feasible? You see, Abbas was lying again. He neglected to mention the meeting at the White House with President Bill Clinton and then Israeli P.M. Ehud Barak and P.A. leader Yasser Arafat. Barak offered Arafat a state on almost all of the West Bank. Arafat walked out, went back to his headquarters in Ramallah, and started the second intifada in which Arab suicide bombers blew up Jews on buses, in cafes and other places, and even at a Passover Seder. And Abbas also turned down a state when offered one by then Israeli P.M. Ehud Olmert. But Abbas stands up at the UN and says it is Israel that is not abiding by agreements.

Israeli P.M. Netanyahu had been the Israeli Ambassador to the UN from 1984 to 1988. It was the custom for many Israeli political and military leaders to meet with the Chabad Lubavitch Rebbe, Rabbi Menachem Mendel Schneerson. The Rebbe is widely considered to be the most influential rabbi of the twentieth century. So, upon his appointment, Netanyahu, too, spoke with the Rebbe. As Netanyahu tells it, the Rebbe advised: "You will be serving in a house of many lies. Remember that even in the darkest place, the light of a single candle can be seen far and wide." Clearly, Netanyahu took to heart the Rebbe's advice, and to this day speaks with greater moral clarity at the annual UN assembly than any other world leader.

In addressing the General Assembly last month, Netanyahu said this: The UN "began as a moral force and has become a moral farce." In recognizing the ongoing refusal of Palestinian leaders to accept Israel's existence, Netanyahu said: "How can we expect young Palestinians to support peace when their leaders poison their minds?"

It is anticipated that the French will put forth their resolution to the UN Security Council establishing a Palestinian state on land now controlled by Israel, after the US Presidential elections. While the US has consistently vetoed such anti-Israel measures, the Obama Administration this time advised Israeli leaders that there is no guarantee they will do so again. So Netanyahu, as leader of the tiny Jewish nation, announced: "We will not accept any attempt by the UN to dictate terms to Israel. The road to peace runs through Jerusalem and Ramallah, not through New York."

I believe that the world should stop pretending that a two state solution is feasible. After all, the Palestinians have shown no such pretense.

Will I STILL Vote for Trump? Part II

The media has been focusing on the source of the emails being released by Wikileaks. It may be Russia. It is certainly troublesome if a foreign power is trying to influence our election. It is proper for the media to investigate. But many emails have been released by the FBI, through Congressional hearings, and Freedom of Information requests by groups such as Judicial Watch. But the media seems less concerned with the content of the emails.

Clinton discussed favoring open borders. Clinton's top aides mocked Catholics. Clinton campaign manager John Podesta bemoaned the fact that the San Bernardino terrorists/murderers were not typical Americans. They were Muslims. But do not expect any of this to be big news in the mainstream media. In fact, the Daily Caller reported on various reporters/news organizations who apparently believe their job is to help Clinton win the election. No need for unbiased reporting.

John Harwood is the CNBC chief Washington correspondent, and a commentator for the NY Times. But according to the Daily Caller, the emails reveal Harwood praising Clinton to John Podesta.

Donna Brazile was at CNN when she apparently gave Clinton advance notice of a question Clinton would be getting at a town hall. Brazile is now the head of the DNC - strictly coincidental I am sure.

A producer for MSNBC's "All in with Chris Hayes," apparently told a Clinton spokesperson that Clinton is an "amazing, intelligent woman." And this: "She is smarter than most men and more qualified than most men to be President."

Haim Saban, chairman of Univision, apparently gave advice to the Clinton campaign on how to deal with Trump's comments about Mexicans.

Marjorie Prithcard is the Op-Ed editor of the Boston Globe. Clinton's campaign manager, John Podesta, wanted an opinion piece by Clinton or her campaign published in the paper. Pritchard to Podesta: "Just wondering if we are still on for that piece. Brian said last week it was ready and just needed approval. It would be good to get it in on Tuesday, when she is in New Hampshire. That would give her big presence on Tuesday with the piece and on Wednesday with the news story."

Excuse me? Here we have a case of the major newspaper in New England coordinating both the Op-Ed and news pages with the Clinton campaign.

I do not condone the language about women used by Trump. I do not condone the actions that he is accused of engaging in, should they pan out to be truthful. But I see no need to focus on that in this blog. The mainstream media is already doing that non-stop on behalf of the Clinton campaign. In what way do these allegations against Trump affect the country or the average American?

On the other hand, corruption, cover-up, and media complicity, damage this country in numerous ways. Our system of laws, in which no person is supposed to be above the law, has been made a mockery. And just what is the point of a free press when it decides that acting as an organ of the Democratic party is more important than doing their traditional job of challenging abuse of power, and doing investigative journalism.

Will I STILL Vote for Trump? Part I

My last post discussed whether I might vote for Trump following the release of an 11 year old video, in which Trump is essentially saying he could do whatever he wanted with women. There was a question of whether it was braggadocio or a reflection of his behavior. Now, we have a number of women coming forward alleging sexual harassment incidents involving Trump, although often regarding events from decades ago. Nevertheless, the question has arisen: even now, will I still vote for Trump?

When Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State she set up a private email server in her home. Why would someone do that unless they anticipated that they would want future communications kept from the public? Eventually, we find out that Clinton was sending and receiving emails on her private system which had been marked classified. Further emails revealed the improper communications between the Clinton Foundation and the Clinton State Department.

Following an FBI "investigation," Director Comey announced that Clinton was extremely careless with classified documents, but would not be recommending prosecution. Later, we find out that top Clinton aids were given permission to destroy their computers. It also became clear that all of Clinton's emails were not, in fact, turned over, and many were destroyed (recall Bleachbit).

Then, Bill Clinton "coincidentally" runs into Attorney General Loretta Lynch on the tarmac at the Phoenix airport. From everything we now know, it is likely that Lynch was assuring Bill that there would be no prosecution of Hillary. In fact, the day after the FBI Director announces that he will not recommend prosecution of Hillary with regards to the mishandling of classified information, AG Lynch announces that their investigation is over. The AG did not even pretend to take the time to review all (any) of the FBI file and investigation. After all, it is the prosecutors who decide whether or not to file a case, not the FBI investigators.

There were FBI investigators who would have recommended prosecution. There were career prosecutors in the Justice Department who would have pursued the case. But no matter. The fix was in at the highest levels of government.

In summary, we had official corruption and misconduct by Hillary Clinton and her State Department. We had a cover-up of that misconduct at the highest levels of government. Was Obama involved in the squashing of a prosecution? Well, do you think he wants to see Hillary or Trump succeed him? I think that answers the question. To top it off, we have a media complicit in the cover-up.

Remember Watergate? Corruption and cover-up, but an aggressive media that never stopped following up leads until the full story came out. The result: numerous prosecutions and the resignation of a sitting President. So, please excuse me if I am a little offended by those who only want to talk about Trump, yet completely ignore facts that, in another era, might bring down a President, and Presidential candidate. As for today's media, see Part II.

Will I Still Vote for Trump?

Not knowing there was an open mic, in 2005 Trump was heard to say, among other things, these words: "You know I'm automatically attracted to beautiful - I just start kissing them. It's like a magnet. Just kiss. I don't even wait...and when you're a star they let you do it...You can do anything...grab them by the p...., you can do anything."

So, did Trump actually do these things, or was he simply bragging about his sexual prowess to a young Billy Bush? Who knows. I do not speak in that manner. But let's get real. Many men do. I am not just talking about uneducated men. I have heard men with college degrees and higher use similar language. How many of you believe you are voting for saint?

Many of you may be familiar with some of the transgressions of prior presidents. FDR had a long term affair with Lucy Mercer. Eisenhower had an affair with Kay Summersby. Kennedy? We may never know all the women with whom he had extramarital sexual relations. Johnson had an affair with Madeleine Brown, who had a child by LBJ.

Then we come to Bill Clinton, who will be back in the White House should Hillary win. Juanita Broaddrick accused Clinton of rape. Kathleen Willey says Clinton groped her, without her consent. Paula Jones claims he exposed himself to her and and sexually harassed her. We know he had extramarital sexual relations with Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky. How many of you voted for him anyway?

How many of you will vote for Hillary notwithstanding her verbal attacks against the women Bill sexually harassed? Such as: "They're trash, nobody's going to believe them." Now, we have some leaked comments made by Hillary in some of her paid political speeches. To Brazilian bank executives, Hillary said this: "My dream is a hemispheric common market with open trade and open borders..." Open borders. Anybody think open borders is working well in Europe? I guess, if you believe in the Islamization of Europe. So, sneak into Mexico or Brazil, say, and you automatically gain access to the US? In the age of terrorism, why is that a good idea?

So, I am hearing much greater outrage over Trump's words than I recall hearing about Bill Clinton's actions. But Hillary Clinton is the Clinton running now. Fine, here is a brief summary of some of her words and deeds. At Andrews Air Force Base, Hillary met with the families of those killed in Benghazi. Recall she and Obama pushed the false narrative of the Benghazi attack not being a planned terrorist attack, but rather a spontaneous demonstration against some anti-Muslim video. So, she promised those families: "We are going to have the filmmaker arrested." And she and Obama did! Even though she immediately admitted privately to the Egyptian President: "We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack, not a protest." How do you lie to the faces of the families of American heroes who died because of her inaction? How do you have an innocent man arrested? Anything to help Obama win reelection, as this all occurred only two months prior to the 2012 election.

Hillary was wrong on virtually every major issue while serving as Secretary of State. She supported the Arab Spring and overthrow of Mubarek for the radical Muslim Brotherhood. She supported the overthrow of Qaddafi, a dictator, yes, with the result being a failed state run by Islamic terrorists. We know about her "reset" with Russia, which Putin took as a green light to take over the Crimea and eastern Ukraine. And she supported the giving of nukes to the Iranian Ayatollahs. I could easily write several posts on all of Hillary's scandals - her private email server, the Clinton Foundation, the millions she collected for giving speeches - a convenient end run around campaign finance laws.

And then there is this - the undoing of Western Civilization by the left and radical Islamists (and those who support them and support Sharia law). Where has the left created greater freedom and greater economic success? No, the left will and does work hand in glove with Islamists to bring less freedoms and less economic growth, and certainly less security. Jews have had to leave Europe in increasing numbers. How long will European countries as Western societies even survive? So, will I still vote for Trump? Yes, because I understand that I am not voting for Saint-in-Chief.

Why I Would Never Vote for Hillary, Part II

I do not believe there should be a political litmus test for the right to do business in this country. It smacks of McCarthyism - but I guess the left only cares when the other side is doing it. (For those who missed it, many Democratic elected officials expressed a desire to deny Chick-Fil-A the right to do business based on the owner's expressed belief in traditional marriage.)

I oppose Obamacare, and any expansion of it. Not surprisingly, it is failing, with more and more insurance companies dropping out of the Obamacare market. The ACA resulted in many people losing their insurance, and no longer being able to see their same doctors. If the government did not waste so much money they might be able to afford a catastrophic care fund, leaving competition in the rest of the market.

I do not believe we should undo the economy of the USA (or the world) in order to lower global temperatures by one tenth of a degree - or even one whole degree.

I do not believe it is healthy for society when the Fourth Estate acts as the propagandist-in-chief for its left-wing agenda, instead of reporting the news, and challenging abuse of government power.

I do not believe in the tax and regulate mentality, which has resulted in eight consecutive years of low growth.

I do not believe the federal government, or state or local government for that matter, should dictate what kids are allowed to eat in school.

I do not believe it is the job of government to tell me what size soda I may buy. Or what type of light bulb I may buy.

I do not believe we should have given the Iranians a clear path towards obtaining nuclear weapons. They repeatedly express their desire to wipe Israel off the map, and destroy the United States.

I do not believe in political correctness. While I do not believe in unnecessarily insulting others, I also do not like being told what I may say or think.

I do not believe it is the job of government to redistribute wealth. Let me repeat: "If you want something, work for it."

I do not believe in any utopia, socialist or communist or otherwise. Utopias at best tend to enforce conformity (are we there already?) and at worst have resulted in millions of deaths.

But, maybe for some the policies of the candidates are less important than the personalities and records of the candidates. Hillary was a US Senator. According to National Review, her biggest accomplishment as Senator was getting a US courthouse renamed the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse.

But she was Secretary of State. She supported the "Arab Spring," resulting in the overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt, and the coming to power of the Muslim Brotherhood. She supported the overthrow of Qaddafi, resulting in a failed state in Libya controlled by terrorist groups. And let's not forget Benghazi. She supported the "reset" with Russia, allowing Russia to seize the Crimea and eastern Ukraine. She supported the Iran nuke deal.

Hillary said that she and Bill left the White House in 2001 broke. In the last 15 years they have managed to become multi-millionaires, being paid exorbitant amounts to speak to Wall Street and foreign countries. Of course, all those people expect nothing in return for all the money paid to the Clintons. Just like the many contributors to the Clinton Foundation who did, in fact, get special treatment following their "donations."

But Hillary supports women. Like when she called Monica Lewinsky a "narcissistic loony toon." Or when she blamed the "vast right-wing conspiracy" for all the women sexually harassed by Bill. She even threatened "some folks are going to have a lot to answer for."

So, I do not support the policies of the Democratic party. But maybe you believe Hillary will deviate from those policies. I do not believe she is the shining example for women to emulate. But she is smart. All I can say to that is shame on you if you believe IQ is more important than good values - like honesty and integrity. Can I say that Trump has good values? Probably better than Hillary's. But I do not vote on that basis. These people are not saints. That is why I ignore these issues and vote based on policies.

Why I Would Never Vote for Hillary, Part I

When it comes to voting for President of the United States, many people decide on which candidate is the "best" in their minds, which candidate is more "Presidential." Not me. There are countless reasons why I could not support any Democratic candidate. Here are some of my reasons. (For factual support of my propositions, see the 262 blog posts that I have written to date; or at least peruse those from this year.)

I do not believe in big government. I believe the bigger the government, the less freedoms we have.

I do not believe in the platform of Black Lives Matter. It is anti-America and anti-Israel. It is based on a lie regarding police shootings. (Yes, I agree some shootings are unjustified.) Let me ask, how often do you see on TV or in the papers pictures and stories about all the whites that are shot and killed by police?

I do not believe that we should deny that "radical Islam"/"Islamic terror" exists. I do not believe they should have removed those phrases from military and security agency's training manuals.

I do not believe that we should ban "offensive" speech. I do not believe college students - adults - should be mollycoddled. They need to grow up and accept that not everyone agrees with them. That's life - deal with it.

I also do not believe in banning political speech. Yes, the Dems do, with their proposal to Amend the First Amendment in order to overturn the Citizens United case.

I support Israel. I do not support the BDS (Boycott, Divest and Sanction) movement against Israel. I do not believe in the two-state "solution." I stopped believing in it when the Palestinians showed they did not believe in it either, with the 2000 intifada, and their repeated declarations regarding taking over all of Israel, and killing all the Jews.

I do not believe in open borders. All countries protect their borders; well, almost all. It appears that the Europeans have given up on that of late. But vote for Hillary if you like the Islamization of Europe, because she will carry on what Obama started and bring hundreds of thousands more "refugees" here.

I do not believe in "income equality," especially not if it is mandated by the government. This country affords you the opportunity to succeed like no other. Get an education. Work hard. As my father always said, "If you want something, work for it."

I do not believe America is essentially a racist country. Did I miss something, or did we not elect a black man to be President of the United States twice.

I do not believe in "free" college education. As an adult, I know that there is no such thing. Someone always pays.

I do believe in the Second Amendment. I do not believe in denying law-abiding citizens the right to keep and bear arms.

I do not believe that the Democratic Attorney General of the United States should have threatened to prosecute people who use "anti-Muslim rhetoric." That type of speech is protected by the First Amendment - for now, at least.

Racism and Stupidity - From the Left

Obama recently gave his final speech to the Congressional Black Caucus. Obama: "I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community (blacks) lets down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election." What is Obama talking about? Is he simply saying that blacks should get out and vote? Even if they vote for Trump?

That seems highly unlikely. How would voting for Trump protect Obama's legacy, when Trump says he will undo much of what Obama has done? No, Obama clearly means blacks must vote for Hillary in order to protect (not insult) his legacy. Can anyone possibly think of a more racist appeal than that? Then again, such a comment is consistent with Obama's repeatedly racist and anti-white comments during the last eight years.

Not to be outdone, retiring US Rep. (D-NY) Charles Rangel said this: "His (Trump's) hatred and his bigotry has pulled the rug off and the sheet off the Republican Party so we can see it for what it is." The sheet off? There you have it - Republicans are members of, or support, the KKK. There is no other possible explanation for his reference to "pulling the sheet off." Elected officials who are Democrats have no problem accusing Republicans of the worst behaviors and intentions. Disgusting!

The 9/20/16 headline in the northern New Jersey newspaper, The Record, had this headline after the capture of the man accused of the recent terror attacks in New York and New Jersey: "Motive a mystery." The suspect was a Muslim and was from Afghanistan. He had made recent trips to Afghanistan, and had become more religious and conservative in his dress. We know this because the article following the headline told us.

The subheadline was "Friends say they saw changes after trip to Afghanistan." So, how is it that the motive is a "mystery?" They could have said it "appears" to be terrorism. They could have said "possible" terrorism. But a mystery? Only the blind and self-delusional left and left-wing media would say the motive is a "mystery."