Will Israel be Obama's fall guy?

Britain's Guardian reports on August 25, 2009 that President Obama is offering to increase US pressure on Iran in return for Israel's pledge to halt building in settlements. In other words, if Israel refuses to halt its settlement activity, the United States will do nothing when President Obama's self-imposed September deadline for an Iranian response to cease its pursuit of nuclear weapons expires. Sounds like blackmail to me. What President Obama is saying is, "Jews may not build or expand homes in certain areas of Israel. If you continue to do so, you are on your own with the existential threat which Iran poses. Good luck!" These do not sound like the words of a concerned friend.

As Caroline Glick writes in the August 27, 2009 Jerusalem Post, President Obama is setting Israel up to be the fall guy. If and when Israel refuses this "deal," President Obama will point to them and say, "I tried to take a tough stand versus Iran, but Israel stood in my way." Never mind that there was no chance Iran would respond positively to President Obama's peaceful overtures to begin with. They saw him as one of Lenin's "useful idiots." President Obama is one of those (almost always liberal) people who believes that if you just offer the right deal to evil people, they will cease their evil ways, and be reasonable. Those of us in the (almost always) conservative camp understand that often there are those who just wish to do evil, and no amount of incentives or coaxing can influence them. History is replete with examples of evil people who take advantage of good people's (well-intentioned) naivete. Many good people are genuinely so good, they cannot fathom that there are those who are equally genuinely evil. As much as the good wish to do good, the evil wish to do evil (though the evil rarely see their actions as evil, but rather as necessary, or even good).

I hope that American Jews finally come around to the realization that Barack Obama is not a friend of Israel. From his statements on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to the advisors with whom he has chosen to surround himself, he has chosen between support for Israel and currying Arab favor.

He has chosen the latter.

PA professor: No Jewish connection to Western Wall

In a previous post, I commented on a Palestinian Media Watch report which detailed an official Palestinian Authority claim that Israel is a racist state, and wishes to expel all Palestinians. Here is another report, in which a Palestinian Authority professor claims that there is no Jewish connection to the Western Wall (Kotel). Mountains of archaeological evidence and written records apparently mean nothing to this academic. The fact that his salary is paid by the group with whom Israel is to make peace means nothing to those on the Left who insist Israel must create a Palestinian state out of Israeli territory. There is literally nothing which the Palestinians can do or say which will convince the Left that peace with Israel is the furthest thing from the Palestinians' minds.

For example:

• Teach hatred of Israel and Jews in school textbooks? Check.
• Celebrate the deaths of innocents slaughtered in a pizza parlor? Check.
• Refuse to acknowledge Israel as the Jewish state? Check.
• Smuggle anti-tank weapons into the Gaza Strip? Check. (Against whom would these weapons be used? Egypt?)
• Randomly fire rockets at civilian centers, from civilian centers? Check.
• Stand in line at a disco and detonate a bomb belt with ball bearings? Check.

And Israel is still pressured to make "goodwill gestures." Incredible.

New York Times - Abbas lacks political weight

The New York Times certainly has a way of creatively interpreting events. On May 28, 2009, the Times reported that Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas' meeting with President Obama was "more amicable" than Israeli officials' meetings were. I interpret this, in light of President Obama's Cairo speech the next week, to reflect President Obama's clear preference for engaging the Arabs in dialogue, and heavily taking their side in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. The President has essentially frozen Israel out of negotiations, only talking to the Palestinians.

But the Times has a different take. Why were the talks "more amicable" with President Abbas? Because Abbas "does not have the political weight at the moment to push through anything on the Palestinian side." Poor, poor Abbas. All he wants is to forge a peace with Israel, but he lacks the political ability. On what do they base this? Back in April, Abbas made it clear that he would not recognize Israel as the Jewish state (!). The Israelis have had the audacity to make this request of the Palestinians.

Does anyone honestly believe that all that is holding President Abbas back from making peace with Israel is "political weight," as the Times would have it? Or perhaps it is that, like his predecessor Yasser Arafat, Mahmoud Abbas has no desire to make peace with Israel? For if he would do this, as Arafat himself feared, this would spell the end of his career. President Abbas knows that if he reaches an agreement with Israel, there will be no more excuses. No more blaming Israel for the Palestinians' woes, no more claiming impotence when dealing with terrorism. It will be time to mature as a people, and take responsibility for one's own actions.

Leave it to the New York Times to make excuse after excuse for any perceived victim group. It is never their fault, always external factors'. Mahmoud Abbas categorically rejected the notion of Israel as the Jewish state. And the Times says that American-Palestinian talks were amicable due to President Obama's desire to build up President Abbas' political weight.

Somewhere, George Orwell is smiling.

Rush Limbaugh - Stop the Nazi comparisons!

I have received some emails from conservative friends likening President Obama to Hitler. Not that President Obama is interested in slaughtering masses of people, but that aspects of his style of governance are Hitlerian. I have responded strongly to these friends, telling them that it cheapens the memory of Holocaust victims to use Nazi comparisons for politicians with whom we disagree. In my book, Nazi imagery is off-limits, except for discussions of Nazis.

And then Rush Limbaugh (whom I do not listen to on the radio) says in response to Nancy Pelosi's contention that there were swastikas at health care reform townhalls that the Obama health care reform logo reminds him of a Nazi logo. Are you kidding me? First of all, he is flat-out wrong. The logos look nothing alike. Secondly, using Nazi comparisons when they are incorrect is disgraceful. There is a tendency to use Nazi comparisons when one has no better argument. This goes for both liberals and conservatives (though I find it more frequently among the former, particularly against President George W. Bush). Why did Limbaugh say this? Was he trying to be funny? There is nothing funny about it. And even if the logo was similar, so what? Does he sincerely believe that President Obama's PR people would have created that on purpose?

Republicans must write to Rush Limbaugh demanding an apology. He cheapened the memory of Hitler's victims, and he made the GOP look foolish. Sort of like what we accuse the Democracts of regularly. To maintain our moral high road, we must reject this kind of demagoguery.

Write to Mr. Limbaugh at: ElRushbo@eibnet.com. Following is a sample email:

Dear Mr. Limbaugh,

As a concerned American about President Obama's health care reform plan, I appreciate your efforts to alert all Americans to its dangers. I reject, however, the demonizing of our fellow Americans on the left, by your use of Nazi comparisons. I saw the logo montage on your website. The logos do not at all resemble each other. Regardless, Nazi comparisons are absolutely unacceptable as part of civil political discourse in this nation. As Republicans, conservatives, and Americans, we are better than that. We can let our reasoned arguments win the day. I believe your comments warrant an apology to Holocaust victims and to those who look to you for smart political thought.

Thanking you in advance,

Sincerely,

Liberal Bumper Stickers, Part 1 - War is Not the Answer

I was driving behind a liberal-bumper-sticker-covered car today, and knew immediately the driver was a woman. I was correct. (Try this experiment once: When you see a car with any bumper stickers, try and guess the sex of the driver by the stickers. The more stickers, the more likely the driver is a liberal. The more liberal the stickers are, the more likely the driver is a woman.)

When I got home, I jotted down the stickers I could remember. I plan to analyze them (and others I have seen) in this and future posts.

• Liberal Bumper Stickers, Part 1 - War is Not the Answer

As Dennis Prager has said, "It depends what the question is." If we want to know how to make a key lime pie, then war is certainly not the answer. If, however, we want to know how to defeat major evils in the world (like Nazism, Communism, Radical Islam), then war may, in fact, be the only answer. Was it peace activists who defeated the Nazis and Imperial Japan, and who liberated Auschwitz? No, it was the combined Allied military forces who bombed and bombed and bombed until both Hitler and Hirohito realized that there was no chance at victory. Neville Chamberlain felt that war was not the answer, and he is remembered by history as one of its great fools. Did Prime Minister Chamberlain mean well? Undoubtedly. But as Winston Churchill said to Chamberlain at the time, "You were given the choice between war and dishonor. You chose dishonor, and you will have war." How many tens of millions of innocent lives, from the Allies, the Axis, and other victims, would have been saved had Chamberlain said to Hitler, "You touch Czechoslovakia, and Britain will not hesitate to use all of its resources to stop you." Might there have been battles between England and the Third Reich? Might many soldiers have died. Of course. Have we learned nothing from history, with millions upon millions of innocent victims crying out to us, "Do not negotiate with evil. Destroy it!"?

"All we are saying, is give peace a chance," went the old folk song. But were those who sung it serious? Did they really want to give peace a "chance"? Or did they really want to avoid war at all cost, even at the expense of others' liberty? Saying that one wishes to give peace a "chance" means that if negotiations fail, force may be a necessity. "Speak softly, and carry a big stick," advised President Theodore Roosevelt. Know when to use wise diplomacy, he was telling us, but make the other party aware that if necessary, the United States is willing to use its military might to protect its interests. Otherwise, America will be seen as a paper tiger. And weakness is not a helpful reputation in the world today.

Here are some other examples of war being the proper and moral answer:

• Was it peace activists who brought down the Soviet Union, freeing millions trapped behind the Iron Curtain? No, it was Ronald Reagan's promise to Mikhail Gorbachev that the United States would spend more than the USSR on more advanced weaponry. It was the United States military, which showed the Soviets that they would never be able to defeat America in battle.
• Was it peace activists who saved South Korea from being swallowed up by the North, from being included in the current concentration camp which is North Korea? No, it was the Korean War, fought by America and its allies, purely to save a foreign people from being put under the yoke of Communism.
• Was it peace activists who stopped the cross-border raids of the PLO from Lebanon into Israel in the 1980s? No, it was the Israel Defense Forces, fighting a war, which forced the PLO out of Lebanon.
• Was it peace activists who liberated Kuwait from Saddam Hussein's Iraqi Army, having been swallowed up as another province of Iraq? No, it was the American-led military invasion (which, incidentally, Vice President Joe Biden opposed) which saved Kuwait from being wiped off the map.
• Was it peace activists who saved Kosovar Albanians from being slaughtered by Serbs in the late 1990s? No, it was NATO forces which bombed Serb forces. Militarily.
• Was it peace activists who saved the Iraqi people from their murderous tyrant of a ruler, Saddam Hussein? No, it was another American-led military invasion which did the job. (For those who opposed the Iraq War, you must admit that the US Armed Forces did infinitely more to protect the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussein and his henchmen than any peace activist ever did. Perhaps America should not have invaded in the first place, but you must admit this fact.)

I think the historical pattern is clear. War is most definitely the answer to many conflicts in the world, especially when one of the actors is bent on murdering as many innocents as possible. When dealing with conflicts between democracies - say, America and Canada - war is most likely not the answer. But when one is dealing with a Hitler, a Mussolini, a Saddam, a Kim Jong Il, an Ahmadinejad, a Radical Islamist, war is oftentimes the only answer.

PA: Israel is a racist state; threatens all humanity

In a Palestinian Media Watch article, the official Palestinian Authority news agency, WAFA, published an article on July 27, 2009, in which it accused Israel of plotting to expel its Arab citizens, as well as the Palestinians from their areas. It also accused Israel of being a racist state, a threat to the entire world, and of refusing to accept the return of Palestinian refugees.

1. If Israel had wanted to expel its Arab citizens and the Palestinians, does anyone honestly think they could not have done so by now?
2. Israel is not a racist state, because though it was founded as a state for the Jewish people, anyone can become Jewish, and hence earn citizenship. Additionally, Israel accepts non-Jews as citizens.
3. Israel being a threat to the entire world is such an odd accusation. I suppose that since there are so many who wish to see her destroyed, if she were to be destroyed, there might be a tad more peace in the world. Then again, those who destroyed her would most likely move on to their next target. Antisemites rarely satisfy themselves merely with the Jews (thanks to Dennis Prager for this point).
   
4. The "right of return" is nothing more than code for the elimination of Israel as a Jewish state. Millions of Palestinians streaming into Israel would "democratically" vote out the Jews. As opposed to what Israel did by absorbing and acculturating around 800,000 Jewish refugees from Arab lands around the time of Israel's founding in 1948, the Arabs have kept their Palestinian brethren languishing in refugee camps, maintaining their feelings of anger and sense of victimhood, promising them that one day, they would return, and drive the hated Jews into the sea.

It is with people like these that the world wishes Israel to make peace? Peace is not a possibility for this generation; yet another generation of Palestinian children has been taught to hate the Jews. I hope and pray that future generations of Palestinians are taught to live in peaceful coexistence.

Until then, peace through strength and deterrence!

Finally! New York Times endorses napping

Count me among the lovers of the New York Times. Well, perhaps that's overstating the issue. The Times' August 6, 2009 editorial page quoted a Pew Research Center study which asked the subjects if they had napped within the past 24 hours. I never would have predicted the results; they seem so random:

• Men napped more often than women.
• Blacks napped more often than whites or Hispanics.
• The unhappy napped more often than the happy (this one's pretty obvious).

I would have also been interested in knowing the numbers of liberals versus conservatives. During the past school year, I'd say I napped about once every two weeks. When I say "napped," I mean head down in folded arms, hardcore power nap. Ten to fifteen minutes later, I am good to go. I recommend it to all as a great invigorator.

So I say to all with much conviction, "Nap on, MacDuff! Nap on!"

New York Times ignores President's call for reporting on fellow Americans

Just to clarify that title - it was not that the New York Times honorably refused to heed the President's call for reporting on Americans, but rather that they treated it as a non-issue. A Google search on August 6, 2009 of the terms "obama, white house, fishy, new york times/washington post/los angeles times" received a grand total of zero hits. The only mainstream hits were of abcnews.com and foxnews.com. Not sure what I am talking about? You're not alone.

On August 4, 2009, abcnews.com reported that White House director of new media Macon Phillips asked that Americans who receive emails or hear conversations with incorrect information about President Obama's health care reform (he calls it "something...that seems fishy") report it to the White House. Supporters of the President's plan might say, "He just wants to correct the information out there. He wants to pass responsible health care reform, and his efforts will be hindered by incorrect information." Opponents (full disclosure - like myself) might counter with, "Fair enough. But just think if George W. Bush would have done the same thing regarding the Iraq War. Can you imagine the outrage in the media? You know they would yell, 'Witchhunt! McCarthyism! Freedom of Speech!' " Though there is technically nothing wrong with this, it stinks to high heavens of a police state, with citizens reporting on each other. You want to go tell the President what your friend Bill said at the water cooler? Go ahead, but that the request for information come from the White House itself? It does not seem appropriate.

Time and again, the media elites (New York Times, Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, NPR, PBS et al) demonstrate that they are in the tank for President Obama. If one is going to be tough on George W. Bush (as well they should have been), they need to be consistent with Barack Obama. But then again, he's their man.

Iran and North Korea - Talking while working

Dana Summers, Orlando Sentinel - This about sums it up. President Obama has made it clear he plans on engaging Iran and North Korea with no preconditions. Just talk to them, see what their concerns are, see where we can see eye to eye. After all, you can't only talk to your friends, right? Are President Obama and his supporters so blind to the notion that when you negotiate with thuggish or illegitimate governments, you are giving them an international seal of approval?

At what point will President Obama understand that it is futile to have any dealings with such governments? When they actually possess a nuclear device? Then it will be too late, and the response from the White House will be, "At least we tried. Best of luck to you, Israel."

It all comes down to Psalms 120:7 - "I am for peace, but when I speak of it, they are for war." This explains Middle East politics perfectly. Middle East actors understand one thing, and one thing only: power. If they sense you are negotiating from a position of weakness (which is what they feel with America and Israel), they will go for the jugular. They will interpret your "good-will gestures" as a sign that you can be defeated, perhaps now, perhaps later. But you will be defeated. The only response to those who announce they wish to destroy you is to take them at their word. Do not rely on others for help. Take your enemy's word seriously, and destroy him. The alternative will be disastrous.