Sunday, March 1, 2015

Obama Insults AIPAC, American Jews

Michael L.

While the Obama administration seeks to delegitimize Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, directly before his upcoming speech to Congress this Tuesday - and just prior to his re-election bid - it also allowed rumors to swirl that it would boycott the AIPAC conference scheduled for this week.

Given that AIPAC is the single most important pro-Israel organization in the United States, to not send a high ranking official to the conference would be considered an insult to American Jewry, as well.

The much ballyhooed Obama boycott of AIPAC has turned out to be false, however.

The Obama administration is not boycotting AIPAC.

Obama intends to send national security adviser, Susan Rice and U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations, Samantha Power, both of whom are high level Obama administration officials.   Rice, however, claims that Netanyahu, in the speech that he has yet to give, is "destructive of the fabric of the relationship" between the United States and its foremost Middle Eastern ally.  Power, on the other hand, has pondered aloud about the circumstances in which the US might be compelled to fight Israeli Jews on behalf of the Palestinian-Arabs.

In a piece for the Jerusalem Post, Michael Freund asks, Is Obama stirring up anti-Semitism?
This is a sure sign that not only does the Obama administration lack message discipline, but can barely conceal its unmitigated hostility toward the Jewish state and the man who leads it. Indeed, to decry a speech by a close US ally to the elected representatives of the American people as “destructive” is not only offensive, but it crosses the lines of diplomatic decency. It is the kind of remark that Israel’s enemies will be more than happy to exploit in an effort to paint the Jewish state, and Jews themselves, as undermining America.
I would argue that, in fact, Barack Obama is stirring up anti-Semitism and has been for years.

It is not that Barack Obama is himself, necessarily, anti-Semitic, but that his disdain for the Jewish State of Israel tends to justify the hatred of those who are.  By continually making unreasonable demands upon the Jews of the Middle East - such as that they not be allowed to build housing for themselves and their children in Judea and Samaria, the traditional homeland of the Jewish people, even within existing townships and villages - he helps create an atmosphere wherein anti-Semitism thrives and Jews around the world are put on the defensive.

To invite Susan Rice to AIPAC is a kick in the head to all of us who care about the well-being of Israel.  Obama is mocking AIPAC, if not American Jews, more generally, because now that he has won his second term there is little that we can do about it.

During the previous two presidential elections, American Jewry got down on its hands and knees and gave Barack Obama a big, wet smooch on the tush.  In response, Obama has turned around and, with a smile, kicked us directly in the teeth... but he has been doing that, more or less continually, in a variety of ways for many years now.

However counterproductive and false Susan Rice's views of Benjamin Netanyahu might be, she never discussed on camera the circumstances necessary for conquering Israel, as Samantha Power did.

The conversation took place entirely as a hypothetical in which she was asked, in the event that either side undertook genocide against the other, what should be the US response?

Needless to say, she automatically - and insultingly - assumed that the Jews would commit genocide against Arabs.

This is the exact question:
Let me give you a thought experiment, here, without asking you to address the Israel-Palestine problem.  Let's say that you were an adviser to the President of the United States, how would, in response to current events, would you advise him to put a structure in place to monitor that situation least one party or another be looking like they might, uh, be moving toward genocide?
Under such circumstances, she said, the US would need to "put something on the line," i.e., be willing to make hard sacrifices.

And what might putting "something" on the line mean?
Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of (giggles) tremendous political and financial import.
Power muses that the US would need "a mammoth protection force" in Israel.  It would have to be a "meaningful military presence" because "you have to put something on the line."




Obama chose Rice and Power precisely to send a message to American Jewry.

Were that not the case he would have chosen individuals who do not stir up hatred for Netanyahu and Israel, nor those who ponder aloud the circumstances under which the United States would have to militarily crush Jewish opposition in the Middle East.

He didn't.  Instead he chose Rice and Power... Power and Rice.

Clearly Obama was aware of the feelings of these close advisers before he chose them to represent his administration at the current AIPAC conference.  Given the current manufactured hostility from Obama toward Netanyahu and, by extension, Israel, his appointment of Rice and Power to represent his administration at AIPAC 2015 could not have been accidental.

Obama is driving a wedge between American Jews and the Democratic party.

The only question is, why?

Saturday, February 28, 2015

Give 'Em Hell, Bibi!

Michael L.

{Cross-posted at Jews Down Under.}

bbDuring the 1948 presidential campaign, Harry Truman toured the country attacking Republicans and putting forth his own views on what was best for America.  At one point during a speech in Bremerton, Washington, a man in the crowd cried out, "Give 'em hell, Harry!"

To the delight of the listeners Truman called out, "I don't have to give 'em hell.  I just tell 'em the truth and they think it's hell!"

Well, one thing is certain, Benjamin Netanyahu has not been "giving 'em hell" in recent years.

Under pressure from a hostile American administration and its European Union partners, Benjamin Netanyahu, was forced to humiliate himself by apologizing to Turkey's president Erdogan for the fact that Turkish Jihadis got themselves killed in a foolhardy attempt to break the blockade of Gaza.  Netanyahu caved to the Palestinian demand that it release Jihadi terrorists in return for the privilege of maybe, at some point, sitting across the table from Palestinian-Arab dictator, Mahmoud Abbas, who is now in the tenth year of his four year term.  Netanyahu agreed to support the creation of a "Palestinian" state on traditional Jewish land in Judea and Samaria and provided electricity to Gaza while the Gazans were shooting rockets into the southern part of the country, making life practically unlivable there.

Netanyahu even agreed to a ten month freeze on building within Jewish townships in Judea and Samaria in order to encourage Abbas back to the negotiating table, but Abbas refused until the final weeks of that ten month period, pocketed the concession and then demanded an extension of the freeze in return for exactly nothing.

No matter how many concessions Israel makes, the Palestinian Authority never reciprocates, continues to teach its children to despise Jews, and incites its people to violence against us.

Yet, as far as Barack Obama is concerned, it is the side that calls for peace and that makes concessions, i.e., the Israeli side, which is intransigent, while the "Palestinian" side calls for blood, never makes a concession, and is never asked to concede anything.  It does not matter to the Obama administration what the "Palestinians" do or do not do, because it is the Jews of Israel, and only the Jews of Israel, that must be disciplined and forced into compliance.

As for Obama, he did give 'em "hell"... the Israelis that is.

As Caroline Glick recalls in the Jerusalem Post:
He and his representatives have given a backwind to the forces that seek to wage economic warfare against Israel, repeatedly indicating that the application of economic sanctions against Israel – illegal under the World Trade Organization treaties – are a natural response to Israel’s unwillingness to bow to every Palestinian demand. The same goes for the movement to deny the legitimacy of Israel’s very existence. Senior administration officials have threatened that Israel will become illegitimate if it refuses to surrender to Palestinian demands.

Last summer, Obama openly colluded with Hamas’s terrorist war against Israel. He tried to coerce Israel into accepting ceasefire terms that would have amounted to an unconditional surrender to Hamas’s demands for open borders and the free flow of funds to the terrorist group. He enacted a partial arms embargo on Israel in the midst of war. He cut off air traffic to Ben-Gurion International Airport under specious and grossly prejudicial terms in an open act of economic warfare against Israel.
But, now, Netanyahu has an opportunity to "give 'em hell" in return and I very much hope that he does so.

This is not for the purpose of giving Obama the comeuppance that he so richly deserves, but to prevent Iran from gaining a nuclear bomb within 2 years or 5 years or 10.

Obama broke his promise.  He told the world that the United States would prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weaponry, but now he has changed his tune.  Instead of preventing Iran from nuclear break-out capacity, the Obama administration wants the United States to constrain, but not impede, Iranian nukes for maybe ten years, while allowing it a one-year window for completing its Jihadi Bomb.

The reason that Obama is going to allow Iranian nuclear break-out capacity is because the US administration is endeavoring to turn the Islamist state into a regional strategic partner.  It is also for this reason that the Obama administration is comfortable with Iranian expansion into Syria, Yemen, and Lebanon, if not Iraq.

This is entirely unacceptable to the people of Israel - left, right, and center - and the Sunnis throughout the region are, for the most part, no happier about any of this than are the Jews.  The only people who seem comfortable with Iranian nukes are Barack Obama and the Iranians, themselves.

If Obama gets his way, we will see an arms race throughout the Middle East with virtually every significant player scrambling to kick-start their own nuclear programs.  There is certainly no possible way that Egypt will allow a nuclear armed Shia Iran without Cairo gaining that capacity, as well.

What is necessary is for the American people to make it clear to the Obama administration that we stand not only with the people of Israel, but with people the world over - most particularly in the Middle East - who understand that a nuclear-weaponized Iran is potentially disastrous enough that as a basic matter of common sense it must be prevented.

Obama is not up to this job, because his heart is clearly not in it.  Obama the community organizer from Chicago is comfortable with Iranian nukes.

Benjamin Netanyahu the commando from Israel clearly is not.

I say, give 'em hell, Bibi.

Just tell 'em the truth and they'll think it's hell.

Friday, February 27, 2015

Rest In Peace

spock

American race-baiting and Middle Eastern Jew-baiting

Sar Shalom

In 1981, RNC committeeman gave an interview describing the evolution of race-based appeals in which he said:
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can't say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
A similar process happened in the anti-Israel appeals for support. From the start of the Palestinian national movement in the 1920's at least until the riots following the UN Partition vote, the refrain of those opposing the rise of Israel was
Filastin bladna
W'al yahud klabna
In English,
Palestine is our land
and the Jew is our dog
By the 1960's, the Arabs started to recognize that explicit expressions of Jew-hatred were counterproductive. So they started making appeals based on addressing the Palestinians' dispossession. By the 21st century, the message morphed again into saying that all that is needed is enforcement of international law. Essentially, calling for adherence to international law is more abstract than calling for alleviation of the Palestinians' "dispossession" which is more abstract than calling the Jews dogs.

Why is it that the Left can easily recognize the Right's racially coded dog-whistles beneath the facade of neutral sounding language, but see nothing wrong when the Arabs' advocates use the same tactic of dog-whistle appeals to Jew-hatred couched in the noble language of international law? That is what we need to call them out on.

Thursday, February 26, 2015

Johnny Cash Came to Town

JayinPhiladelphia

The Man in Black was born on this day in 1932.  One of America's pioneering musical icons, he was deeply committed to social justice, and was a strong supporter and friend of Israel.
In the mid-1990s, when Israeli cities, and particularly Jerusalem, were attacked by Palestinian suicide bombers, tourism to Israel fell off sharply. The Cashes, now in their sixties, returned to Israel for a fifth visit, and with their own money produced a TV film titled Return to the Holy Land. Throughout the film -- a musical travelog through pastoral, bucolic sites associated with the life of Jesus -- the Cashes assured their American viewers that Israel was as beautiful and tranquil as ever, and they should not hesitate to visit it soon. There is no mention in the film of the conflict with the Palestinians, nor of any internal debates or dissension within Israel. Despite the changes in Israel, and in world attitudes toward the Jewish state, Johnny and June Carter Cash’s zeal for Zion remained intact.
Often described as a founding father of modern Christian Zionism, his solid liberal credentials, such as his activism on behalf of prison reform and as an advocate for Native American rights, do not necessarily mesh well with the picture many anti-Israel types would like to paint of his kind.

A deeply patriotic American, this is my favorite quote of his -
"I love the freedoms we got in this country, I appreciate your freedom to burn your flag if you want to, but I really appreciate my right to bear arms so I can shoot you if you try to burn mine." - From Ragged Old Flag on The Great Lost Performance, recorded at the Paramount Theatre in Asbury Park, NJ, 1990
A fantastic philosophy to live by.  He would have been 83 today.  He had his struggles and failures like anyone, but I'd say on balance he left the world a better place than he found it.