Tuesday, March 31, 2015

Barack Obama: The Most Dangerous Man in the World

Michael L.

Barack Obama is no ally to the state of Israel and no friend to the Jewish people.

Writing in Arutz Sheva, Ari Yashar and Matt Wanderman tell us:
obamaIn a development that has largely been missed by mainstream media, the Pentagon early last month quietly declassified a Department of Defense top-secret document detailing Israel's nuclear program, a highly covert topic that Israel has never formally announced to avoid a regional nuclear arms race, and which the US until now has respected by remaining silent.

But by publishing the declassified document from 1987, the US reportedly breached the silent agreement to keep quiet on Israel's nuclear powers for the first time ever, detailing the nuclear program in great depth.
This development is highly suspect for two reasons.  The first is the timing.  Does anyone believe that this is honestly a coincidence, coming directly off of the most recent - and most vicious - series of attacks by the President of the United States against the Israeli Prime Minister?

Yashar and Wanderman, write:
Another highly suspicious aspect of the document is that while the Pentagon saw fit to declassify sections on Israel's sensitive nuclear program, it kept sections on Italy, France, West Germany and other NATO countries classified, with those sections blocked out in the document.
There is no doubt that Obama's Jewish sycophants will ignore, or deflect, this particular development just as they ignore, or deflect, all the various ways within which Obama likes to kick Israel in the head.

What is perhaps most worrisome is the apparent disinterest on the part of the Jewish Left, if not the Left, in general, toward the soon to arrive Iranian Jihad Bomb.  They may not get it for two or three years, or it could even be as long as ten, but it is coming.  And it is coming, at least in part, because Obama is enabling it.

As has often been noted, Obama has a rather strange diplomatic style that was perhaps first noticed when he insisted upon handing a bust of Winston Churchill back to the British.  That was a rather rude gesture to one of America's closest allies, but it was mere foreshadowing of what was to come.

Obama has the tendency to spit at friends of the United States while embracing its enemies.  His warm embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and his cold shoulder toward Israel clearly demonstrate this unusual and counterproductive tendency which remains a mystery for people all around the world.

Our friend Anne, over at Anne's Opinions, has finally concluded that Obama does, in fact, wish to see Israel dismantled as the national home of the Jewish people.  She writes:
Along comes this interview (h/t Zvi) in the New English Review with Prof. Richard L. Rubenstein, no intellectual lightweight, who rather shockingly (at least for some people) comes to the conclusion that Obama is a revolutionary, and that his ultimate goal is the destruction of Israel. Since that is too much of a task to carry out by himself – and there is no way that the American people or Congress would agree to such a thing – he is enabling this at the hands of Iran and its proxies.

Not so long ago I would have recoiled from such a claim in disdain, thinking it to be a delusional conspiracy theory, along with all the other theories that claimed that Obama was a Muslim, not born in the US, a Communist, etc.  I used to ascribe to the adage “Do not ascribe to malice what can be ascribed to incompetence” and was of the opinion that Obama’s surreal politics stemmed from naivete and inexperience.  (Emphases mine.)
Having determined that Obama is neither naive, nor inexperienced at this point, Anne concludes that the answer to Obama's behavior in regards Israel is simply malice.   He wants Israel hobbled or gone.

Here was my take in the comments:
Obama went to university, and studied with people like Edward Said and Rashid Khalidi, that taught him post-colonial theory, within which Israel is cast as an imperial interloper that has unjustly subjugated the “indigenous” population.

If this is the root of his hostility toward Israel, which I suspect it is, it may very well be that he honestly believes that if only Israel would “end the Occupation” – whatever exactly that means – and that the “Palestinian” people be allowed their freedom to pursue their national destiny, then the conflict would end and Israel could live in peace as the Jewish homeland.

I do not know if this is what he believes, but something along these lines is entirely plausible.

Like millions of other progressives, it’s not that he thinks Israel should be dissolved as the Jewish State, it’s just that he honestly believes that Israel is immoral and needs to reform.

Think Peter Beinart, for example.
Anne pointed out that whatever the source of Obama's disdain for Israel, it is nevertheless exceedingly dangerous and she is absolutely correct.

The problem is not merely that Obama does not like Israel - and he doesn't - it is that by enabling an Iranian bomb he is laying the ground for a nuclear arms race, if not a nuclear holocaust, in that part of the world.

The dispassion with which so many Obama supporters follow this story is disquieting.  The impression that one gets in reading the western-left press is that they honestly do not care one whit whether Iran gets the bomb or not.

Many would argue that it is only fair that if the US has the bomb and Israel has the bomb and these other countries have the bomb, why should not Iran get it, as well?  Others would suggest, rightfully so, that if we were Iran we would want the bomb as a defensive measure and I have no doubt that when the Iranian government considers its strategic-military place in the world a nuclear shield looks mighty attractive.

While it may very well be in Iran's national interest to gain nuclear weaponry, it is most definitely in the national interest of both the United States and Israel (not to mention Europe and the entire rest of the planet) to prevent Iran from gaining that technology.

Unfortunately, Barack Obama seems to disagree.

Monday, March 30, 2015

The Sucker's Game

Michael L.

{Originally published at the Elder of Ziyon and cross-posted at Jews Down Under.}

bad poker hand If you are smoking a cigarette, pondering your seven-deuce off-suit in the hole, and looking around the table wondering who the sucker is... you're the guy.

The Arabs and their western-left allies have the Jews hooked into a sucker's game.

One thing that should, by this late date, be absolutely clear to anyone who has been paying attention to the ongoing war against the Jews of the Middle East, is that the Arab governments, and their peoples, have no intention whatsoever of allowing the Jews to live in peace within our ancestral homeland.

The success in the Arab-Muslim approach to the conflict is due, in part, to the weight of sheer numbers and the heaviness of time.  It is certainly not due to anything resembling finesse or sophistication. The Arab world is vast, with estimates ranging from between 300 and 400 million people pushing against a small, historically abused, Jewish population of around 6 million and a Christian minority that is being chased out everywhere in the region other than in Israel.

The Arabs, emphatically, do not want those Jews or Christians living there in freedom or in peace.  This is due to millennia-old, Koranically-based anti-Jewish and anti-Christian prejudice and "racism" that is both rife and genocidal in that part of the world.

Given the size of the Arab population in the Middle East, however, it is not difficult for the Arab governments and peoples to place remarkable pressure on the Jews of Israel, or the Christians in the region, without suffering much in the way of uncomfortable blow-black for that hostility.  This is particularly true given the fact that Christians authorities in the West are studiously unconcerned with the fate of the Christian minority in the East.  Just why they are so unconcerned is anyone's guess, but that they are unconcerned is a fact.

Hostility toward Jews, however, is very convenient from a Muslim propaganda stand-point and in no way causes even a ruffle in Arab comfort, outside of the Palestinian-Arab community that, along with the Jews, bear the brunt of the burden.  They can defame the Jews in any way imaginable - I mean, really, spy vultures? - and no one minds and they can use the "Palestinians" as front-line troops against the Jews while suffering no casualties or day-to-day inconveniences, whatsoever.

This, for example, is part of the EU-funded Hamas charter and represents an excellent example of violently-inclined Arab-Muslim anti-Jewish paranoia and hostility that is entirely ignored by their friends in the West:

They (Jews) stood behind the French and the Communist Revolutions and behind most of the revolutions we hear about here and there. They also used the money to establish clandestine organizations which are spreading around the world, in order to destroy societies and carry out Zionist interests. Such organizations are: the Freemasons, Rotary Clubs, Lions Clubs, B’nai B’rith and the like. All of them are destructive spying organizations. 
They also used the money to take over control of the Imperialist states and made them colonize many countries in order to exploit the wealth of those countries and spread their corruption therein. As regards local and world wars, it has come to pass and no one objects, that they stood behind World War I, so as to wipe out the Islamic Caliphate. They collected material gains and took control of many sources of wealth. They obtained the Balfour Declaration and established the League of Nations in order to rule the world by means of that organization. 
They also stood behind World War II, where they collected immense benefits from trading with war materials and prepared for the establishment of their state. They inspired the establishment of the United Nations and the Security Council to replace the League of Nations, in order to rule the world by their intermediary.
The only people that suffer from the never-ending conflict are the Jews in Israel and the Palestinian-Arabs... but the Jews get all the blame.

Year upon year, decade after decade, the Arab world encourages "Palestinian" youths to throw themselves, and their rocks, with murderous rage upon the Jews of the Middle East and every time they do so - every time that they fling themselves into yet another psycho-orgiastic anti-Semitic round of intifadan violence against Jews - sadistic western "progressives" pull their hair, raise their quivering fists, and scream from the hillsides that Jews are the New Nazis.

For Israel it is a matter of life and death.

For western progressives it is a matter of break-out-the-popcorn and watch them squirm and die while feeling morally superior.

The Jews of the Middle East are a people living under siege by a much larger hostile majority that honestly believes that Allah despises the Jewish people and that Muslims have every right to kill Jews because Jews are said to be the slayers of prophets and the starters of all wars.

Meanwhile, as the Arab world seethes with a crude and genocidal Medieval anti-Semitism, their western-left apologists condemn Israel as a violent, racist, apartheid, colonial, imperial monstrosity.

Within living memory of the Holocaust, the western Left tells itself that the Jewish State is the worst country in the world and deserves whatever beating that Muslims care to dish out, even as Islamists are slaughtering people throughout northern Iraq and Syria under the crazed Islamic State regime.

What this means, as should be obvious by now, is that there will be no negotiated two-state solution to the Arab-Israel conflict.  Not any time in the near future, there will not be.

The Jews of the Middle East have agreed to an additional Arab state within the tiny Jewish homeland since at least the Peel Commission of 1937.  From that day until this the Palestinian-Arabs have never accepted a state for themselves in peace next to the Jewish one, yet Barack Obama and the western Left continually and unjustly blame the Jewish people for Arab intransigence and hatred toward us.

There is no one on this planet who wants peace with the Arabs and the Muslims more than do the Jews of that part of the world.  They are a tiny minority in a savage environment who want nothing so much as to be left the hell alone so that they can go about creating computer software and litigate against one another.

Despite this, the Obama administration, the EU, the UN, and their terroristically-inclined friends in the PLO and Hamas are ratcheting up pressure on Israel to accept what we Jews have always accepted, a "Palestinian" state carved out of the Jewish homeland, if it is willing to live in peace next to Israel.  For some inexplicable reason they cannot seem to take "yes" for an answer and will continue to pressure Israel until such a time as it agrees to what it has long ago already agreed to.

Meanwhile, the Obama administration is endeavoring to wound Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, because Netanyahu dared to suggest that an Iranian nuclear bomb could very well be unhealthy to daisies and small children.  He also suggested that given Arab intransigence there would not likely be another Arab state superimposed upon Judea and Samaria any time soon and this is correct.  There will not likely be another Arab state because they refuse offer after offer for such a state, in peace next Israel, and then point the trembling finger of blame at the Jews.

Well, as my dear old ma used to say, enough is enough.

The Palestinian-Arabs have no intention whatsoever of coming to a negotiated conclusion of hostilities and this means that the only alternative is unilateral action.

I do not wish to conjure the ghost of Ariel Sharon, but Israel needs to declare its final borders.

What those borders should be is, in my view, entirely up to them.

Finally, while it is true that in the game of Texas Hold 'Em a seven-deuce off-suit is a terrible hand, it can only actually hurt you if you play it.

You do not have to.

Saturday, March 28, 2015

My Sunday Column

Michael L.

is usually published at the Elder of Ziyon at 8 AM Eastern Standard time.

Tomorrow's article is entitled The Sucker's Game and here is a tid-bit:
The Jews of the Middle East have agreed to an additional Arab state within the tiny Jewish homeland since at least the Peel Commission of 1937.  From that day until this the Palestinian-Arabs have never accepted a state for themselves in peace next to the Jewish one, yet Barack Obama and the western Left continually and unjustly blame the Jewish people for Arab intransigence and hatred toward us.

There is no one on this planet who wants peace with the Arabs and the Muslims more than do the Jews of that part of the world.  They are a tiny minority in a savage environment who want nothing so much as to be left the hell alone so that they can go about creating computer software and litigate against one another.

Thursday, March 26, 2015

On Rights, Peace and the Power Of Truth

geoffff


Image result for martin luther king

Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide,

In the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or evil side.


James Russell Lowe, nineteenth century abolitionist.
As quoted by Martin Luther King, Jr. concluding the Riverside speech of 4 April 1967 when King first linked the struggle for civil rights to the Vietnam War.

Human rights and peace are about as necessary and compelling a combination as any in nature. One without the other is an orphan that never was. A water molecule without oxygen.  Only a violent revolutionary or an academic could disagree.

Or perhaps Bob Carr.

It’s time to talk Turkey about the Israel issue.

Not just Turkey.

It’s time to talk Egypt, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Iraq, Libya, Islamic State, Russia, Syria again , Obama, Europe, very especially Iran and very much in particular “Palestine” and all those across the seas who are driven into the Israel issue by duty or conviction whether for good or  evil.   All of them; woman, man and nation. It is time to talk Left. Especially the now openly antisemitic academic Left.

Some will take the use of “scare quotes” for “Palestine” as a calculated offence to the actuality of “Palestinian” human rights and nationhood; however “nationhood” is defined.  Not so. It is respectful of the rights of these people to not label them and therefore to define them by a banner they never did choose for themselves. It was chosen for them, then used by the regimes that have since ruled over them that they also did not choose. The PLO, PA, Hamas, Fatah, Islamic Jihad and the rest. They war among themselves most of all but they do have one overriding thing in common. Never an election in sight. Ever. There was an “election” in “Palestine” about a decade ago. It was the first.  It led to a sharp and bloody “civil war” as brutal as any and all civil wars.  But a war within a “state” that does not exist and never has?  What eventually emerged to grab power promised and delivered more killing and war and not just in Gaza.

Everyone agrees another “election” is not a good idea right now, especially Hamas and Fatah. One “election” was enough.  Another brewing “civil war” has higher priority.  Of all the “polities” in the world only “Palestine” needs this many “scare quotes”.

There is much at stake here. This is a struggle for the language as much as for civil rights and peace. It is a struggle for language. Those who are arrayed against Israel and accuse her people of genocide, imperialism,  fascism, aggression, illegality, war mongering, apartheid and racism are first of all mortal enemies of language as are all ideologues of totalitarianism and their fellow travelers. Also drained of any worthwhile meaning are terrorism, defense, law, ethnic cleansing, soldier, two state solution, occupation, independence, liberation,  freedom and self determination.  

Kill the language of politics, and civil rights and peace are at your mercy, as George Orwell so brilliantly made manifest for the ages. The Left are particularly adept at this. The past belongs to you no matter what abomination you have in mind. Genocides, wars, nakbas, nations and peoples either happened or did not depending only on the narrative of your ideology and nothing else. That can be changed at will.

As human conflicts go, this one has been loaded with enough baggage to weigh down the Sixth Fleet.

At stake is the idea of the rule of law and especially the concept of international law.

What could be called in Australia, the Bob Carr slur against the law, is so ubiquitous that many take it as a given. That the 1949 armistice lines are now borders and therefore the Jews living beyond the borders and their communities are illegal even if they are on land where Jews have lived continuously for centuries. Even in Jerusalem. The Israeli government is acting illegally by permitting Jews to live in certain Jewish neighbourhoods in Jerusalem, or indeed by not removing them, by force if necessary, to make way for Hamas and the PLO. Only Jews are illegal. Arabs can and do live where they like, even if they are Israelis, including in what was once the Jewish Quarter of the Old City.

There is no suggestion of illegality from anyone and certainly not from Bob Carr.  The Bob Carr concept of jurisprudence has very closely defined boundaries indeed. Whether people are living in an illegal community depends entirely on whether the people are Jews. Jews living in a part of the city where they are forbidden are breaking the law.

The 1949 armistice lines are exactly that. The lines were declared in a flash by soldiers on a battle field strewn with vehicles, guns, interlocked troop units and the tangled debris of war. They were not and were not imagined to be borders.  It was an interim boundary pending negotiations and treaty between the parties that did not even include “Palestinians”, let alone “Palestine”. They did not exist as an identifiable people or nation. All that was in the future.

The negotiations never happened and so the state of war never ended. Instead there were three more wars. Every peace initiative since has been grounded in the principle of land for peace. A negotiated border in exchange for peace and recognition. The “Palestinians” have been retrospectively catapulted into history as a principal party, as sometimes happens, even if no one is able to define who they are or accept where they came from. (Here’s a hint. Jews are from Judea. Arabs are from Arabia.)

That the “Palestinians” are there now no one can deny but here is the rub. Land for peace was accepted by Israel and Egypt and so there was a peace treaty.  A permanent peace with Israel has never been accepted by “Palestine”. That would require recognition of the sovereignty of the Jewish state, including sovereignty over her borders and population, and that is abhorrent to the ideology of Palestinianism and those who push this ideology from Tehran to the campus of Sydney University.   As Yasser Arafat observed to Bill Clinton after the collapse of the Camp David talks, any “Palestinian” leader who attempted such a treaty would be signing his own death warrant.

None of this is to suggest that a negotiated two state solution is not fair, legal and equitable. Just not at all possible right now, is all.  So what the Israeli PM says in an election campaign is irrelevant to all of this. Of course there can be no unilateral withdrawal to an old armistice line puffed up as a border in a war that has never been declared over.  That is not a bid for peace and if it is required by law, then this is a law that requires that Jews who can not be killed or subjugated must commit suicide. Good luck with that. This is something beyond the gift or power of Netanyahu or anybody else. Even Obama, Jimmy Carter or Carr could not deliver on that. If you want Jews dead then it will have to be murder. The haters of Israel should at least have the honesty to say so.

Iran does.

Exactly a year to the day after the Riverside speech, Martin Luther King had his throat torn out by a single bullet from a high powered rifle while leaning over the rail of the balcony of an Afro American segregated motel in Memphis, while talking to a colleague of Jesse Jackson below, silencing him forever. Twelve years earlier and he had begun his campaign with the Montgomery Bus Boycott.

Many then thought his campaign was a pipe dream. King was a trouble maker. He was up against an ingrained racism in people who themselves were often thought of in racist terms. White trash. The Alabama cops just across the state border in Driving Miss Daisy. The mob who Gregory Peck had to guard his client from in To Kill A Mocking Bird thereby inspiring a generation of lawyers who might have otherwise done something more useful with their lives. Incorrigible and beneath reform.

Fifty years later and there are hundreds of high schools, streets and public buildings named after Martin Luther King, most of them in the south. People can change. In the time of Martin Luther King most Australians would likely have identified more with segregationists with the bull horns and the guns than with the non-violent civil rights movement. We had our own segregation and King and his movement would have been seen as evidence in support of the White Australia Policy. Keep foreign racial troubles out. Political cultures are never stagnant. It is bigotry to suggest they are never ending for some.

The notion of Jews being confined to their own section of town is hardly new but to declare it as modern law is bizarre, offensive and dangerous. If there is any hope of an agreed land for peace deal then it must be negotiated between parties that are not impugned as illegitimate. If one party is to be excoriated as “illegal” then the negotiations have failed even before any one has come to the table. That way lies war. This is why Carr and people like him, including of course the whole BDS movement, are a threat to world peace.

The terrifying thing is that Carr may well be right and that if the matter was to now come before an international tribunal,such as the ICJ, a majority of the judges, coming as they do from countries where judges are under the thumb of the ruling ideology and even some who are not, may decide that Jews living free are illegal in “Palestine” as they are throughout the Muslim world. Or would be illegal had they not been expelled decades ago. They offend not just sharia. At that point international law will have caught up with sharia. It is exactly at that point that international law as a concept worth preserving will have died. What stumbling brain dead hulk that remains would be best put down before it did any more harm. A victory for Bob Carr.

So it is time to stop calling this issue the Israel/Palestine conflict.  It has nothing to do with “Palestine” or Israel, or at least nothing they can do much about. It is a multi layered abuse of the language to call it this.  Israel and “Palestine”  are paper boats in a bath buffeted by much wilder ocean winds. Neither is really in control of its destiny. “Palestine” in particular has no free agency at all.

Call it the Israel issue if you like because it is least of all about Israel and is about the rest of us. Take a look at “Palestine” and the rest of the Muslim world, especially Iran that now the worst and most dangerous US president in history, even worse than Carter, has fallen on both knees to appease like a supplicant who beholds a vengeful prophet. This could be exactly the problem.  Take a look and you are staring into the mouth of an active volcano. If you think that tossing Israel into the boiling lava will calm the angry fires, a sort of human virgin sacrifice to the gods, then you are indeed in the mental atmosphere of the seventh century.

As if you could. Some sacrifice. Some virgin.  But you could end up destroying the world.


Cross-posted at Geoffff's Joint and Jews Down Under.