Even if Israel is completely wrong, can one make peace with these people? Part I

A question I like to ask my liberal friends who support a two-state solution or various other concessions from Israel towards the Palestinians is this: Even if Israel is completely wrong in its conflict with the Palestinians, and should completely withdraw to the June 4, 1967 lines, can one really expect Israel to make peace with these people?  I look forward to sharing many examples of why even if one maintains this view on Israel, one cannot reasonably expect the State of Israel to sit down with those who glorify murderers of innocents.  It sends a clear message to one's people, that murdering innocents is to be praised.

Palestinian Media Watch communique of January 15, 2010: "Fatah prides itself on deadly terrorist attacks."  They salute those who fired rockets into Israel from Lebanon in the 1980s, and praise those who murdered nearly fifty innocents in a hotel takeover in 1976, and a bus hijacking in 1978.

And these are the ones with whom Israel is expected to make peace?  Kudos to the Palestinians for at least being forthright with their feelings.  They do not hide their true thoughts at all.  They could have said, "At the time, we thought that what these fighters were doing was good.  We realize now that they were despicable acts."  At least make it seem like you have changed your spots!  But they continue to heap praise on terrorists who purposely murder innocents.  Not as collateral damage in an operation against a military target, but as intentional damage.  When Israel kills innocent Palestinians, it is nearly always in the course of targeting terrorists.  It is not the Israeli army's goal.  The Palestinians' goal, however, is to attack as many innocents as possible; it is not a bi-product of an attack, but the very purpose of the attack!

So I ask you, dear reader, knowing that the Palestinians glorify murderers, and make it clear that the primary goal of attacks is to murder innocents:

Even if Israel is completely wrong, can one really expect it to make peace with these people?

Grow up, Deputy FM Ayalon! This is not how you treat people.

Having a secular government, Turkey has generally been Israel's closest Muslim ally.  In the past, the two nations have even conducted join military drills.  The relationship has been a rare bright spot in Israel's quest to forge normalized diplomatic ties with its neighbors in the broader Middle East.

And then Turkish television broadcast a series in which Israeli agents scour the world for children to kidnap and convert to Judaism, as well as Israeli soldiers purposely shooting smiling Palestinian children.  An outrageous depiction, to be sure, and Israel was justifiably angry.  In response, Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon summoned the Turkish ambassador, Ahmet Oguz Celikkol, for a meeting.  At the meeting, Ayalon was seated on a higher chair than Celikkol, did not display the Turkish flag on the table between them, and refused to be photographed shaking Celikkol's hand.  Mr. Ayalon also said to the assembled media in Hebrew (which Mr. Celikkol does not understand): “The important thing is that people see that he’s low and we’re high and that there is no flag here."

While it was correct to summon the Turkish ambassador to express Israel's anger at the television series, the way Mr. Ayalon handled the situation was childish, immature, and in direct opposition to traditional Jewish values.  Jewish tradition regards the public embarrassment of another as akin to murdering him (בבלי בבא מציעא נח, ב / Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia 58b), and says that one should sooner jump into a flaming furnace than embarrass his fellow publicly (בבלי כתובות סז, ב / Babylonian Talmud, Ketubbot 67b).  Additionally, by making his statement in Hebrew about the height differences, Mr. Ayalon violated the Biblical command of "לא תקלל חרש / Do not curse the deaf" (ויקרא יט:יד / Leviticus 19:14).  For all intents and purposes, Ambassador Celikkol was as a deaf person in this instance, and Mr. Ayalon took unfair advantage of his Turkish colleague.  This was completely unacceptable from an ethical perspective.

Finally, Mr. Ayalon's apology read, in part, "I had no intention to humiliate you personally..."  Rubbish!  Of course he intended to personally humiliate the ambassador!  How else to interpret the 1) chair height differences, 2) lack of Turkish flag, 3) refusal to shake hands on camera, and 4) saying what he said to media present?  If one is going to insult another, at least be mature enough to admit it.  Mr. Ayalon should have said, "I apologize for humiliating you in front of the cameras.  It was wrong and immature of me.  I assure you that in the future, I will convey concern to the Turkish government in a more professional manner.  Forgive me."  He would have emerged from the row looking much better than he does now.

This incident represents a low point in Israel-Turkish relations.  Considering that Turkey has shown an interest in strengthening its military ties to Syria recently, Israel should not purposely engage in actions which would push the Turks away.  It need not pander to them, but it also should not engage in immature, unprofessional acts, which may feel cathartic when performing them, but serve no long-term purpose, and violate a millenia-old value system.

Honor of the presidency "Lost" on President Obama

Some quick facts about the recent State of the Union/Lost scheduling issue (full disclosure: I am a huge Lost fan):

• The Lost season premiere is scheduled for February 2, 2010.
• The State of the Union address is traditionally given at the end of January, after Congress returns from its winter recess.
• There were rumors that the White House would push the address back to February 2, in order to allow for the President's health care reform package to pass Congress beforehand.
• Enraged Lost fans flooded ABC with complaints that the speech would interfere with Lost's season premiere.
• The White House assured Lost fans that the President would not "preempt" their beloved show on February 2.

Many of you may be thinking, "President Obama is smart.  He does not want to anger a large voting bloc by pushing off their show's season premiere.  What's the big deal here?"

Here is the big deal, and here is how President Obama shamed the sacred office he holds.  There are terrible crises in the world today: genocide, AIDS, corruption, the economy, war, famine, earthquakes et al.  The world looks to the United States for the lion's share of help in solving all of those problems.  The State of the Union is the President's opportunity to outline his plan for dealing with many pressing issues to the entire country, and much of the world.  The assurance by the White House that the State of the Union will not conflict with Lost is sending a clear message: The world of fantasy is more important than the world of reality.  How else to interpret press secretary Robert Gibbs' statement of, "I don't foresee a scenario in which millions of people who hope to finally get some conclusion with Lost are preempted by the president"?  Mr. Gibbs should have responded, "I understand that there are many Americans who are eager to begin to have closure with Lost.  While the President appreciates the desire to escape the world of reality from time to time with a movie or TV show, he also understands that the world's problems are too important to be beholden to a television show.  To paraphrase Marie Antoinette, 'Let them DVR it.' "

Instead, Robert Gibbs shamed the White House, and President Obama shamed the presidency.  In their quest to be loved by all (a characteristic nearly monopolized by liberals), they tried to appear as the "cool" teacher, the one who tries to endear himself to his students by acting like them, instead of acting like an adult.  A teacher's job is not to commiserate with students' frustrations when they have their priorities out of order.  It is to set his students' priorities straight, to explain to them what is important in life, and what is not. 

As one who has cast himself as America's Teacher-President [see a) his professorial-style speeches, and b) the Gates-Crowley affair "teachable moment" et al], President Obama not only missed an opportunity to set Americans' priorities straight, he also dishonored the highest office in the land. 

He should have placed the World 6 Billion ahead of the Oceanic 6.

Victory in Afghanistan = Telling the enemy when you'll leave? Got it.

(Cartoon: Michael Ramirez, 12-2-09)

On December 1, 2009, President Obama gave a critical policy speech concerning  a new strategy in Afghanistan at West Point.  In it, he outlined a brief background of the reasons the United States invaded Afghanistan, and what the strategy is to win the war.  Well, sort of win.  If one reads through the transcript, one notices that the President did not use the word "victory" once.  Not once.  Not exactly a classic recipe for military success, if the Commander-in-Chief cannot even bring himself to utter the word "victory."  What he did say, however, was that American troops will start coming home eighteen months after the first troops arrive.  Being a former lawyer, he was very clever in saying this.  After all, if after eighteen months, ten troops return to Ft. Bragg, then he can honestly say to the American people, "I kept my word.  Our troops have begun returning home."  But does anyone seriously think this is what he has in mind?

Here is my analysis of the speech:

1.  On September 11, 2001, 19 men hijacked four airplanes... - "Men," eh?  Were they Mormons?  Methodists?  Hindus?  No, they were MUSLIMS, carrying out their act in the name of Islam!  How can we fight our enemy if we do not even acknowledge who he is?  To those who claim that pointing out that the 9-11 hijackers were all Muslims is a smear on Islam, why is calling them "men" not a smear on all men?  The accusation is ludicrous.  For fear of offending some (by speaking the plain truth), the President showed tremendous cowardice and foolishness.  In the entire speech, he mentioned the words "Islam" and "Muslim" once each.  Once.
   
2. ...these men belonged to al Qaeda -- a group of extremists who have distorted and defiled Islam... - "Extremists"?  Why the avoidance of labeling them "terrorists"?  Indeed, in the next phrase, he says that these "extremists" murdered nearly 3,000 people.  That does not earn them the title of "terrorists"?  What then must one do to earn the title?  And why does he claim that they have "distorted" and "defiled" Islam?  Considering that nearly every terrorist act in the world for the past thirty years has been carried out by those in the name of Islam, can we stop making excuses, and face the real possibility that the perpetrators are actually acting according to an acceptable stream of Islam?  After all, they say they are; why not take them at their word?
3. America...and the world were acting as one...to protect our common security. - I am glad he acknowledged that the terrorists are not aiming for one or two particular nations.  They aim for all those who love liberty and freedom.  Short of converting to their brand of Islam, no one is safe from their terror and violence.
4. ...we are bringing the Iraq war to a responsible end...Thanks to [the US military's] courage, grit and perseverance...we are successfully leaving Iraq to its people. - So, in other words, George W. Bush was right in going in?  After all, the situation is good enough to be able to leave, right?  But eight paragraphs later, the President explains why he opposed going into Iraq, a war which he just admitted was successful.  So perhaps you were wrong in opposing, it President Obama? Perhaps it was necessary to overthrow one of the main terror-sponsoring regimes in the world, whether or not it actually possessed WMDs (which it did everything in its power to convince the world it did have)?
5. I have determined that it is in our vital national interest to send an additional 30,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. - This took tremendous courage for the President, effectively turning his back on his Leftist supporters, who oppose any form of war more than they support ensuring the survival of freedom in the world.  He could have given in to them, refused the request for more troops, and begun bringing troops home now.  Instead, he chose to send more troops, correctly stating that it is in America's "vital  national interest"...
6. After 18 months, our troops will begin to come home. - ...And then he dropped this line.  Mr. President, you just stated that it is in America's "vital  national interest" to send the troops over there; what if they have not accomplished their objectives in eighteen months' time?  Will you extend their service?  But then your "come home" statement is rendered meaningless.  Can one imagine Franklin D. Roosevelt saying that fighting Nazi Germany was in America's "vital national interest," and in the next sentence give a date by which the troops will begin leaving Europe?  What kind of message does this send to a) the Taliban (answer: We just need to hold out until July 2011, and we'll be OK), and b) the average Afghan (answer: Why should I cast my lot with the army which says it will begin leaving in eighteen months?  The Taliban will be here a lot longer.)?  Setting a timetable for leaving sends the message that one is not serious about winning.  The exit strategy for any war should be: WIN!  If you leave a war before you've won, you've lost.
7. I've traveled to Dover to meet the flag-draped caskets of 18 Americans returning home to their final resting place. - That was a powerful moment, to see him saluting the caskets.  I think one needs to be very cynical to criticize him for that.
8. We've failed to appreciate the connection between our national security and our economy...competition within the global economy has grown more fierce. So we can't simply afford to ignore the price of these wars. - So, what you're saying, sir, is that there is a price which is too high for our national security?  That is not the attitude I want my President to have.  Earlier in the speech, he said, "...I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan...it is from here that new attacks are being plotted as I speak."  But if the United Nations, Europe, and NATO do not respond as you would wish them to, by picking up some of the tab, will you close up shop, due to the extra expense?  I trust you would pay for it yourself, saying that American national security is too important to leave in the hands of other nations.  So essentially, this line about ignoring "the price of these wars" is meaningless.
9. (After discussing the issue of open-ended nation-building in Afghanistan) That's why our troop commitment in Afghanistan cannot be open-ended -- because the nation that I'm most interested in building is our own. - But earlier in the speech, he said that "the security of the United States and the safety of the American people [are] at stake in Afghanistan."  So which is it, Mr. President?  You say that there is a price tag, but also say that America's national security is at stake.  If you have spent X, but still feel that America's security is threatened, will you not spend X + Y?  And if you will spend the extra amount, does this not negate your statement about "ignor[ing] the price of these wars"?
10. ...we must make it clear to every man, woman and child around the world who lives under the dark cloud of tyranny that America will speak out on behalf of their human rights. - Unless, of course, that dark cloud of tyranny hovers over a) Honduras (where President Obama opposed those who opposed a Chavez-wannabe's attempt to become a president-for-life), b) Tibet (when President Obama refused to meet with the Dalai Lama, the head of the oppressed Tibetans, for fear of offending the Chinese), and c) Iran (when President Obama issued toothless statements opposing the violent crackdown on those who claimed the June 2009 elections were a fraud).  So, yes, aside from those examples of non-support for those who wish to live in freedom, Barack Obama has consistently spoken out on behalf of their human rights.
11. ...more than any other nation, the United States of America has underwritten global security for over six decades... - Bravo!  And it has been a thankless job, to say the least.  It has been necessary, but unhealthy, for the world to be consistently saved from one natural- or man-made disaster or another by the United States.  This statement answers those critics who complain, "Who appointed America as the world's policeman?"  Answer: the world.  The proof?  To whom do they run when they need military- or financial salvation?  Iceland?  Canada?  Italy?  Even Britain?  No, they run to America.  And another answer to the critics might be: since you probably admit that, due to  the existence of criminals, a city needs policemen, would you not agree that the world also needs policemen?  Assuming you do, whom would you prefer be the world's policeman - the United States or the United Nations? (those are the only reasonable choices).  Which has a better overall track record of protecting the innocent from being slaughtered?

Though I could go on, I think eleven points are enough for now.  I did not even touch the President's renewed  call for universal nuclear disarmament, one of the most foolish goals one can have in a post-nuclear world.  A true man of the Left, President Obama is incredibly naive about evil - its sources, and the ways to destroy it.  Kudos to him for agreeing to send in more troops.  Shame on him for setting a time limit for success.