This is an important question for the upcoming election.
Should the American president support the genocidal Jihad or oppose it? The reason for my concern is that I do not believe that the progressive movement is opposed to the Nazi-inspired Islamist movement. What is a greater danger to the Jewish people... I wonder to myself aloud... Orthodox Jewry or genocidal Jihadis?
Or is it more or less equivalent?
My suspicion is that the genocidal Jihadis, that is the millions of Muslims who favor martyrdom in the killing of Jews and infidels, are probably a little more problematic than are some conservative Jews in Israel. I could be wrong about that... and I realize that it is "Islamophobic" for Jewish people to concern ourselves with an Islamic ideology that would like to see us dead... but I very much suspect that those who want to kill Jews might be a tad more worrisome than Jews, themselves, even of the sexist Orthodox variety. When Barack Obama took office radical Islam could boast the control of the Gaza strip, Lebanon, and Iran (and perhaps Darfur), but now this violently anti-Semitic movement is in the process of taking over the entire Middle East with the blessing of the president of the United States who told the world that they were the contemporary equivalent of the founding fathers or Rosa Parks and the Civil Rights Movement.
Either Barack Obama is right or Barack Obama is wrong:
There are times in the course of history when the actions of ordinary citizens spark movements for change because they speak to a longing for freedom that has been building up for years. In America, think of the defiance of those patriots in Boston who refused to pay taxes to a King, or the dignity of Rosa Parks as she sat courageously in her seat. So it was in Tunisia...
So it was in Tunisia... where they just elected a theocratic government that is entirely hostile to the Jews and to the Jewish state. How in this world are we supposed to convince Jewish people that Radical Islam is a good thing and that Barack Obama was right to support it? I suppose that is a question for the 2012 election. How is it that Obama was not tragically wrong about his cheer-leading for the genocidal Jihad?
That's a good question. Another good question is what to do about this little problem?
The first thing, of course, is that it must be acknowledged in the west. You cannot even begin to deal with any kind of problem until such a time as you are willing to acknowledge it. So, that's the first thing. Instead of promoting Jihad, Barack Obama needs to acknowledge it as a problem. Until such a time as the president of the United States takes his head out of the sand, then we can never deal with what is potentially a very, very serious security threat not only to the Jews, but to the west. A nuclear armed Iran, or a nuclear armed terrorist, could easily spell disaster not just to Tel Aviv, but to any of the major capitals of the western world.
That much is obvious. Progressives don't care, but it remains obvious, nonetheless.
Thus, if we want to hold back the spread of the Jihad among the Middle East governments then we must counter the rise of the "strong horse." If Iran gets the bomb then it will be clear to the governments of the Arab Middle East who is in charge. Part of the reason that so many governments are currently going Islamist is because the peoples of the Arab world see who is winning and who is not. We are not. As Iran marches inexorably toward nuclear weapon status it means that the ayatollahs are taking greater and greater leadership in that part of the world.
Thus it should be the highest priority for the US government to prevent Iran from getting the bomb. We can do so if we have the will. The problem is that we do not have the will and a big part of the reason for that is because the progressive-left simply doesn't care if Iran goes nuclear. The Obama administration is, thus, indifferent, as well and a few piddling sanctions from the EU or the US is not going to prevent Iran from going nuclear.
In any case, if we wish to slow or halt the rise of genocidal Islamism then we must prevent Iran from getting nuclear weaponry. There are other things that we can do, involving infiltration and undermining, but stopping Iran from going nuclear needs to be priority one.
But do not look to Barack Obama to accomplish this.
It is clear that he will not.
"In order for us to win thisReplyDelete
great struggle, we must have the courage to see the world not as we wish
it to be, but as it truly is. It is not morally equivalent when the
offenses of terrorists are equated with the defenses of Israel.
"The following story illustrates Israel's dilemma. "A
Palestinian woman from Gaza arrives at Soroka Hospital in Beersheba for
lifesaving skin treatment for burns over half her body. After the
conclusion of her extensive treatment, the woman is invited back for
follow-up visits to the outpatient clinic. One day she is caught at the
border crossing wearing a suicide belt. Her intention? To blow herself
up at the same clinic that saved her life.
"This is the root of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. It is not about the '67 lines."http://majorityleader.gov/newsroom/2011/05/leader-cantors-remarks-to-aipac.htmlThe world as it truly is; Obama, wake up!
For the life of me I do not see how anyone can be both pro-Israel and pro-Obama.ReplyDelete
He literally supported the rise of the Jihad in the Middle East.
How in this world can anyone who supports Radical Islam be considered pro-Israel?
It simply makes no sense, but more and more I am realizing that politics, in general, makes no sense.
I do not think this statement id correct:ReplyDelete
"I do not believe that the progressive movement is opposed to the Nazi-inspired Islamist movement."
There are some, but also many that are disinterested, ignorant of the information, or are cowered by fear of stigmatized for apostacy.
You also said: "What is a greater danger to the Jewish people... I wonder to myself aloud... Orthodox Jewry or genocidal Jihadis?"
I think the question is better put in terms of the danger to the West, and who has greater capacity to implement their objective.
I believe that Obama is not sympathetic to the Jewish narrative, but knows the nature of Israel's foes. Perhaps he thinks he can change the latter. I think it is a mistaken approach to be too accommodating because it is interpreted as weakness.
Iran is just a mess. Obama's lack of support for the democracy movement in Iran may prove his most costly oversight. I hope the elements within Iran are able to stop the bomb, but acknowledge this is wishful thinking.
Well, I am trying to prod "progressives" to face reality, which seems like a problem for many of them.ReplyDelete
And the thing of it is, most progressives are not opposed to the Jihad. Do you honestly disagree? I mean, for what I can tell the progressive-left is doing an ostrich imitation.
They don't get it.
They don't care.
And they very much want you to shut the fuck up.
Certainly that much is clear, no?
Yes, I mostly agree. That is why I said there is indifference, ignorance and fear.ReplyDelete
My approach is to challenge them to stand up for what they believe, but it remains up to them. I think that is a more persuasive approach than saying they are not opposed to the Jihad.
How can you be opposed to something that you are indifferent to, or ignorant about? It's hard to speak out and be labeled, but that is what I believe a liberal or progressive ought do.
Funny, I was just thinking the same thing but with a slightly different twist. I was thinking how can someone be Pro-Israel and anti-Obama.ReplyDelete
Funny how that works. Wouldn't you say?