Pro-Israel videos from Prager University

Here are some videos (none longer than 6 minutes) related to the Israeli-Arab conflict, and Radical Islam, courtesy of Prager University. They are excellent resources to use as "ammunition" in the battle to defend truth and freedom, against the forces of lies and totalitarianism. Only by consistently fighting for good values can we expect to win this war. This conflict is being fought at least as much in cyberspace and in the court of public opinion as it is being fought on the battlefield. For the world's sake, may we be successful.

• Dennis Prager - The Middle East problem
• Anne Bayefsky - Is the UN fair to Israel?
• Alan Dershowitz - Israel's legal founding
• Alan Dershowitz - Are Israeli settlements the barrier to peace?
• Alan Dershowitz - BDS: The attempt to strangle Israel
• George Gilder - Do you pass the Israel Test?
• Raymond Ibrahim - Radical Islam: The most dangerous ideology
• Kenneth Meshoe - Is Israel an apartheid state?
• Haroon Ullah - Why do people become religious extremists?

So much for freedom of speech at NPR

NPR's Juan Williams says in an interview that when he gets on to an airplane and sees Muslims in "Muslim garb," he "get[s] nervous."  Then he gets fired for these comments.

Imagine if Mr. Williams had said the same thing about Jews or Christians.  Would he have been fired?  Of course not; far from being offended, people would think he was delusional.  When was the last time Jews murdered others in the name of Judaism, or Christians in the name of Christianity?  Stumped?  You're not alone.  For Muslims, however, one need only go back a few weeks (no matter when you are reading this).  Is this tragic?  Certainly.  Is it true, though?  To deny this is to deny the earth is round.   But NPR is much more concerned with being politically correct (read denying reality) than with transmitting truth.  As I have said to many friends, the issue is not whether or not Muslim terrorists are misrepresenting their faith; that is for Islamic scholars to decide.  It is an undeniable fact, however, that for the majority of Muslim terrorists, they think that they are faithfully performing their god's will.  Are they all idiots, or is there something else going on here?

So Juan Williams says what is on millions of Americans' minds.  Are millions of Americans anti-Muslim bigots?  (To the media elite, that is a rhetorical question; it is a given.)  Or, in fact, are they just not oblivious to the events unfolding before their eyes, and do they just want to protect their families?

Are the majority of Muslims terrorists?  The notion is absurd.  But even according to the most conservative estimates, 10% of the Muslim world supports violent jihad to impose shariah.  Friends, that's 130 million people.  That's nearly one-third the population of the United States, and more than four times the population of Canada.  The majority of Muslims are not Arabs.  But the majority of Arabs are Muslims.  Why is this obvious truth any less legitimate than pointing out that the majority of terrorists are Muslims?

Considering there have been exactly zero protests by American Muslims against religious violence committed in the name of their faith, cut us all some slack if we are a bit more suspicious of someone dressed in Muslim garb than we would be of a Hasid from Brooklyn, an Evangelical from San Antonio, or a nun from Seattle.

Islam seeks to dominate. Judaism & Christianity do not.

The fundamental goal of Islam is that all people submit to the rules of Islam (shari'ah), with all which that entails.  Whether your next door Muslim neighbor wants you personally to be a Muslim is irrelevant.  At its core, Islam seeks to dominate the world with its teachings and practices.  Recall that the word Islam means "submission" - submission to the will of Allah, which translates as submission to shari'ah (Muslim law).  It does not mean, as many Muslims and Muslim apologists would like us to believe, peace, shalom.  The word Islam may have etymological roots in shalom, but the word means submission.  Period.

Ah, you say, but does not Christianity want the same thing, for all people to recognize Jesus Christ as their personal savior?  Yes, it does.  But that is essentially where it ends with Christianity.  As Paul taught in the New Testament, the main law now is faith in Jesus.  Not in rituals, but in beliefs.  Christianity does not have a detailed set of rules which affect nearly every aspect of a person's life, as Islam does (and Judaism does, as well).  There was no law in Christianity on which the Medieval Inquisitors based their torture of innocents in order to have them accept Jesus.  They merely felt that it was better for the non-believer to suffer temporarily in this world than eternally in the next.  If the non-believer would have accepted Jesus and gone to church, then that would have been that.  But Christianity would not have directed the minutiae of his life  So, no, dear reader, Christianity does not demand the same of people as Islam does.

Judaism strikes a middle road between Islam and Christianity.  While Judaism does make demands of the non-Jew, these demands are not in the ritual realm, but rather in the ethical realm.  In Jewish tradition, there are seven laws which apply universally.  They are called the Seven Commandments of Noah's Children (Sheva Mitzvot B'nei No'ach):

1. Do not eat a limb torn from a living animal.  (Apparently, this was a problem in the ancient world.)
   
2. Do not curse God.
3. Do not steal.
4. Establish a court system to enforce the other six laws.
5. Do not murder.
6. Do not serve idolatry.
7. Do not commit sexual immorality.

Note, there is no desire for the non-Jew to become Jewish, to keep the Sabbath every Saturday, to refrain from eating pork or shellfish, to light Hanukkah candles, to fast on Yom Kippur, to eat matzah on Passover, etc.  The goal of Judaism is simply this: to bring the world to ethical monotheism.  Believe in one God, and treat each other respectfully.  That is all.  Judaism believes that all good people, both Jewish and non-Jewish, can earn a spot in the World to Come.  If one wishes to accept the myriad other laws which Judaism demands of its adherents, he or she is welcome to join the Jewish people.  But submitting the world to halakhah (Jewish law) is not Judaism's goal.

A microcosm of the fundamental difference between these three religions occurred in September 2006 in Minneapolis.  A group of Somali taxi drivers at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport refused to transport passengers who were carrying alcohol, as drinking is a violation of Islam.  (The airport's response was to accommodate the drivers, proposing that non-alcohol taxis put a different light on the tops of their cars.  A different response might have been: "You have a problem with your passengers bringing a legal substance into your taxi?  Get another job.")  Can anyone fathom a Christian driver refusing a fare because the passenger was eating a hamburger on a Friday?  How about a Jewish driver refusing a passenger wolfing down a ham and cheese sandwich?  The notion is preposterous.  But it is not preposterous at all when dealing with Islam.

I am not arguing, of course, that many Muslims would agree with the taxi drivers.  Most of them would recognize that the taxi drivers' complaint was absurd.  But this story speaks volumes about what a world dominated by Islam would look like.  And dominate the world with shari'ah, with dictating the details of life, is what fundamental Islam wishes to do.  Not fundamental Christianity.  Not fundamental Judaism.

If these words offend you, I am frightened for you.  One should not be offended by the truth.  Troubled, angered - yes.  But not offended.  If my analysis is wrong, please let me know.  But if my analysis is right, please let your friends and family know.  We are engaged in a life and death struggle against those who seek to impose the will of Allah, either peacefully or through force of arms, upon all of us.

Remember the Minneapolis taxi drivers.  Do not say you did not know what was coming.

More risks for peace?

We constantly hear how "both sides" in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict must take "risks for peace."  Prime Minister Netanyahu just announced at a press conference with President Obama that he was willing to do so.  The President said it was vital for Israel to do so.

Nonsense.  How many more "risks for peace" does Israel need to take?

1. Israel transferred thousands of weapons to the Palestinian Authority security forces, only to have those weapons turned against it during the Second Intifada.
2. Israel turned over territory in Judea and Samaria to full Palestinian civil and security control, only to have a number of these cities turn into terrorist hotbeds, from which originated many suicide bombers (e.g. Jenin, Qalqilya, Nablus et al).
3. Israel completely withdrew from the Gaza Strip in 2005, destroying Jewish communities and forcibly expelling their residents, only to have it become a launching pad of thousands of Qassam rockets into Israel.
4. Israel forcibly expelled four Jewish communities in northern Samaria.

Even if one believes that Israel is (much) more in the wrong in this conflict, one cannot seriously claim that Israel has not taken enough risks for peace.  By contrast, the Palestinians have taken virtually no tangible "risks for peace."

1. Have they taught their children that they should live in peace with their Israeli neighbors?  No, they teach them to hate all Jews (not just Israelis, highlighting the religious, not only political, element to this conflict), using language not seen since Nazi Germany.
2. Have they announced that suicide bombings are morally reprehensible?  No, they merely state that such attacks are counterproductive to achieving Palestinian nationalist goals.
3. Have they amended their various charters calling for Israel's destruction?  No (the 1998 Palestinian parliament vote in the presence of President Clinton was invalid, even according to the PLO's Covenant's own rules).  Hamas certainly maintains its open opposition to Israel's existence.
4. Have they ended incitement through their official media outlets (not from a fringe group)?  No, they constantly broadcast hate-filled, antisemitic sermons by PA-sanctioned imams.  (See MEMRI and Palestinian Media Watch.)
   

So I ask those who call on Israel to take risks for peace, what more would you ask of Israel?  Which other risks would you like Israel to take?  For the risks it has already taken, thousands of Israelis have paid with their blood.  Yet Israel is called upon to give more and more, with nary a peep about the Palestinians' constant violations of their accepted obligations.

The bottom line is this: Israel has accepted the notion of a Palestinian state in its midst (though I completely reject this).  The Palestinians in particular, and the Arab/Muslim world in general, do not accept the existence of a tiny Jewish state in the middle of their world.  That is all one needs to know about the current conflict.  If the Palestinians genuinely wanted a state, they could have had one many times in the past.  But anything short of all of Israel, they rejected each and every overture.  But it is not a state they want; it is the destruction of Israel.

If the Palestinians laid down their arms, there would be peace tomorrow.  If Israel were to lay down its arms, there would be no Israel tomorrow.  No more Israeli "risks for peace," please.

Why there should not be a giant mosque built near Ground Zero

From the Forward of June 4, 2010:

• Mosque's plans to expand near Ground Zero spark debate
• Editorial - Faith at Ground Zero

Interesting how the editorial board attacks critics of Imam Feisal Abdul Rauf of seeking to "discredit all of Islam," and then the editorial board itself sweepingly attacks conservative bloggers and Tea Party activists.  We who oppose the building of the mosque, as the Forward puts it, are "bigots," because we oppose it for "unjustifiable reasons" - though the Forward fails to mention even one of those "unjustifiable reasons."  That's the way of the Left - attack and label your opponents, usually without taking the time to debate the issue at hand.

The reason why many of us oppose the building is because it is not in good taste.  Legal?  Certainly.  But it is not the right thing to do.  It is an insult to the memory of those who were slaughtered on that infamous day.  While it is true, as some of my friends have pointed out, that Muslims were also murdered that day, it was religious Muslims who perpetrated the acts.  Until there are massive Muslim demonstrations, on par with those in the wake of the Danish cartoon scandal, in which mainstream Muslim leaders declare that anyone who intentionally murders innocents goes straight to hell, and not to Paradise, there should be nothing to discuss regarding this Ground Zero mosque.  Would we accept white supremacists building a church near the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City?  After all, it's their right, right?  Unlike many of our liberal fellow citizens, we conservatives also think in terms of what is right, not only in terms of what are my rights?

Secondly, why must we persist in trying to show Muslims how tolerant we are of other faiths?  Is it not high time for the Muslim community, whether in America or elsewhere in the world, to demonstrate some tolerance for those who believe differently than they?  Enough of this breast-beating; America has nothing to apologize for regarding its treatment of the members of any faith.  There is no country in the world as tolerant as America is, and we should not be ashamed to say so.

Finally, why does the Forward minimize the evil of 9-11 by calling it "a perverted act of religious zealotry"?  Why are we so afraid of the real possibility that the hijackers were not perverting Islam's teachings at all, but were actually acting in accordance with them?  Perhaps they were, perhaps they were not, but dismissing even the possibility out of hand does no good, and might lay the groundwork for the next violent act by a Muslim who is "perverting" Islam's teachings.  If Christians did what these nineteen Muslims did, having attended fundamentalist churches, and yelled, "Praise Jesus!" as they were crashing their planes, does anyone think the Forward and other liberals would be so quick to disassociate Christianity from their acts of terror?

Bus ads try to help those leaving Islam. Care to drive one of those buses?

Someone decided to sponsor bus ads saying things like, "Leaving Islam?," or, "Fatwa on your head?," or "Is your family threatening you?" in a few American cities.  Of course, the PC-police were out in force, trying to determine whether this would be deemed "offensive to Muslims."  (Read: "Will we receive death threats for this?")

Some simple questions: If the ads had said "Leaving Judaism?" or "Leaving Christianity" or "Leaving Liberalism?," would anyone have been troubled by the possibility that the ads were "offensive" to members of the above groups?  Would we have a UCLA professor mentioning the possibility of extremist groups bombing the buses?  Is there anyone reading this who would be surprised in the slightest if there were violence committed against any of the buses sporting these ads?  Does anyone who is considering leaving the above-mentioned groups need to fear for his life?

Of course, the answers to the above questions are: No, no, no, and no.  Why is that?  What is it about the oft-proclaimed "religion of peace" that gives many people pause whenever something happens which might inflame its adherents?  Could it be there is something in its essence which encourages its practitioners to threaten, and often carry out acts of, violence?

To be sure, there have been no acts of violence committed against any of these buses.  But if you were a New York City bus driver, and you had a choice of driving a bus with one of these ads, versus driving a bus with "I Love Tea Partiers" emblazoned in it (remember, you're in New York City), which one would you choose?

I thought so.

A vote for the Temple Mount on Jerusalem Day

Today, we celebrate the 43rd anniversary of the unification of Jerusalem, after 19 years of division at the hands of the Jordanians.  During that time, despite assurances, no Jews were permitted to access the Western Wall, to say nothing of visiting the Temple Mount.  Since 1967, Jerusalem has been an open city, where all faiths can visit their holy places, worshiping as they see fit.

Except for the Jewish faith.

Only Jews are forbidden from praying at their holiest site, and even visiting is a complicated effort.  Can one imagine the outcry if Christians could not pray at the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, or Muslims from al-Aqsa?  The cries would be deafening.  But it is taken for granted that Jews may not even utter the smallest prayer, let alone read from the Torah, on the Temple Mount.

It is time for this outrage to end.  למען ציון לא אחשה, ולמען ירושלים לא אשקוט.  For Zion's sake, I will not hold my peace, and for Jerusalem's sake, I will not be silent.  Now is the time to make these words a reality.  Let us all stand up for Jerusalem, and sign this petition asking that the Netanyahu government designate the Temple Mount a National Heritage Site.  If Rachel's Tomb and the Cave of the Patriarchs deserve such recognition, does the Temple Mount deserve any less?  It should not matter where one's political leanings are.  This is an issue of simple fairness, for Jews to have equal access to their holy sites, just as Christians and Muslims have to theirs.

Will this action anger the United Nations?  Will the Obama Administration express its concern, even outrage?  Undoubtedly yes, on both accounts.  But it is time for the Jewish people to stand with its head held high, ready to accept whatever criticism may be forthcoming from a world which regularly turns a blind eye to genocide and terrorist attacks, yet still finds the time to issue scathing critiques of the Jewish State's attempts to protect its citizens, and its decision to approve building apartment units.  Such a world has no credibility, and we should not care what they think anymore.

The Western Wall is special, but it is a second prize compared to the Temple Mount.  Help make the joyous shout of the paratroopers back in 1967, "The Temple Mount is in our hands!" a reality again.  We declare at every Jewish wedding that we will never forget Jerusalem.  Here is an opportunity to put those words into action.

Religion of peace threatens yet another artist

First, it was Theo van Gogh, murdered for creating a film which depicted the stories of abused Muslim women.  (Actually, there may have been any number of people before him, but he is the first which comes to mind.)  Then, it was the Danish cartoon incident, in which nearly one hundred innocent people were murdered in rioting, after a newspaper printed a cartoon (!) of Mohammed.  Now, even the creators of South Park are not safe.  After Trey Parker and Matt Stone created an episode which depicted Mohammed, the website RevolutionMuslim.com posted a message which suggested that Parker and Stone would end up like Mr. van Gogh.  In simple terms, Parker and Stone should fear for their lives.  RevolutionMuslim.com was also kind enough to list the addresses of Comedy Central's New York headquarters, as well as of South Park's Los Angeles production studios.  In response to all of this, Ibrahim Hooper of CAIR described revolutionmuslim.com as "an extreme fringe group that has absolutely no credibility within the Muslim community."

My issue with this entire incident is not to take any Muslim organization to task for speaking up or not speaking up.  Frankly, I agree with Mr. Hooper's assessment as to the influence and popularity of RevolutionMuslim.com.  My issue is this: Is there anyone who is the slightest bit surprised that such a threat would emanate from the Muslim world?  The Virgin Mary can be depicted with elephant dung, a crucifix can be dipped in urine, and St. Peter's Basilica can be destroyed by a gigantic tidal wave, and there is nary a hint of a violent response by the Christian community.  (The closest parallel I could think of regarding the Jewish community was Leonard Nimoy's Shekhina (WARNING: Nudity), in which he depicted women in various states of nudity wearing Jewish ritual objects.  From even the furthest right Ultra-Orthodox sect, there was not a whiff of suggestion that Mr. Nimoy had reason to fear for his life.)  Can you imagine if any Christian or Jewish group would issue such a threat?  After the laughing subsided, the threatened artist would say, "No, really, who's calling?  Yeah, right."

Why is it that the only ones who ever threaten the lives of those who supposedly insult their religion are Muslims?  Christians have their faith insulted and made fun of on a regular basis on television and in films.  Yet not even Dogma or The Last Temptation of Christ could elicit anything close to what the aforementioned incidents elicited from Muslims.  One cannot merely chalk up these over-the-top reactions to coincidence, or to overly zealous practitioners of their faith.  There seems to be a disturbing characteristic of modern day Islam: When perceiving a slight to their faith or prophet, Muslims are quite likely to lash out violently. 

The simple fact today is that if any religion's adherents will react violently when they feel their religion is being attacked, it is a virtual certainty that the religion will be Islam.  Yet so many (particularly in the open, liberal, western world), are afraid of stating this obvious truth.  Why?  Surely it cannot be because they are unaware of the overwhelming statistics.  Perhaps it is because they fear for their own lives should they point this out?

Nah, that would be too deliciously ironic.  Any other ideas?

See also:

• New York Post editorial - The Cowards of Comedy Central (April 24, 2010)
• New York Times' Ross Douthat - Not Even in South Park? (April 25, 2010)
  
• Seattle cartoonist launches "Everybody Draw Mohammed Day" (April 25, 2010)
  
• MSNBC - Yale draws criticism for nixing Muslim cartoons (September 8, 2009)
  
• Dennis Prager - Now Yale Embarrasses the Idea of the Western University (August 18, 2009)
  

Profiling by conservatives? Bad. Profiling by Obama? Huh? Obama profiles?

In case you missed this, back in January, following the unsuccessful Christmas Day bombing of a Detroit-bound Northwest Airlines flight, the Obama Administration announced that passengers coming into the United States from fourteen specific countries would be subject to extra security screening. 

While the mainstream media (MSM) did not ignore the story completely, they did manage to avoid stating the obvious: Is this not racial profiling, something they decried whenever conservatives suggested that certain groups, more likely to have terrorists among them, be given extra scrutiny before being allowed to board a plane?  For example, a search of New York Times editorials from the month after this decision finds exactly zero editorials dealing with this issue. 

On the other hand, to its credit, the ACLU criticized the announcement, "...because there is no way to predict the national origin of a terrorist...many terrorists have come from countries not on the list."  (I say "to its credit," because while I think that the ACLU, as usual, is wrongheaded in its opposition to a commonsense approach to fighting terrorism, at least I can respect them for their consistency in criticizing this decision of the Obama Administration.  They, as opposed to the MSM, are at least intellectually honest.)

By the way, what is this "list" to which the ACLU refers?  Here it is, and ask yourself, "Is there any common denominator here?"

1. Iran
2. Iraq
   
3. Syria
4. Sudan
5. Saudi Arabia
6. Algeria
7. Yemen
8. Pakistan
9. Libya
10. Lebanon
11. Somalia
12. Nigeria
13. Afghanistan
    
14. Cuba
    

Hmmm....think, think, think.  Aside from Cuba, what might the other thirteen countries have in common?  Love of cricket?  Former colonies of European powers?  Or could it be, dare I say it, they are all MUSLIM-MAJORITY COUNTRIES!!!  Yet the ACLU's Michael German, in citing Shoebomber Richard Reid, four of the London subway bombers, and a Belgian female suicide bomber says that "...there is no way to predict the national origin of a terrorist..."  Perhaps not, Mr. German, but since all of your cited exceptions were Muslims, is it fair to say that there is a fairly accurate way to predict the religion of a terrorist?  Since the answer is obvious in any honest assessment, putting nearly every Middle Eastern Muslim country on the extra screening list might be a good start.

The two points I wish to make are these:

1. The MSM has exposed itself as blatantly hypocritical in this case.  When conservatives want to give extra screening to high-risk groups, liberals charge, "Racial profiling!  Unconstitutional!"  When President Obama blatantly does the exact same thing, there is not a peep from his adoring fans at the New York Times.  So, when conservatives want to do it, it's unconstitutional.  But when liberals do it, it's OK.  Did I get that right?  I am very interested in how my liberal readers would explain this one.
2. Given that security resources are limited, focusing on high-risk groups, namely Muslims, is clearly the right thing to do.  Claiming that doing so smears all Muslims is ludicrous.  Since, as I believe, the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists, those Muslims should be thrilled that their lives will also be saved by these techniques.  Would they rather get blown up instead of being inconvenienced by some extra screening?  If there were a serial killer on the loose in my neighborhood, would I be offended if the police gave extra scrutiny to me as a man, since the overwhelming majority of brutal murderers are men?  Of course not; I want to live!
   

Having visited Israel many times (I moved there last September), I see on a daily basis how well profiling works.  Israelis do not have time for ACLU-like foolishness; we need to survive.  When eighty-year-old Miami Beach grandmothers start slaughtering innocents, we can focus on them.  Until that time, however, let's go after the usual suspects, shall we?

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.

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.

New TSA restrictions: Knee-jerk reaction (with an emphasis on the "jerk")?

An Amsterdam-Detroit Northwest/Delta flight is almost blown up on approach to Detroit by a Nigerian man, Abdul Farouk Abdulmutallab (son of a Nigerian banker, by the way; don't forget - poverty breeds crime!).  He tried to detonate a powder-liquid mixture which he had strapped to his leg, having mixed the deadly cocktail in the washroom moments before.  And the Transportation Security Agency responds thusly: According to the New York Times, passengers on U.S.-bound flights will be prohibited from leaving their seats during the last hour of a flight, nor will they be permitted to have any "personal items" on their laps during the same time period.

Since this policy was obviously well thought through, and was certainly not a knee-jerk reaction to a foiled terror attack, I am sure the TSA has considered the following possibilities/questions:

1. Is it not possible to mix a deadly potion earlier than the last hour of the flight?  Or all all in-flight incendiary devices limited to this window of opportunity?
2. Is it not possible to mix a deadly potion at one's seat, and not in the washroom, under the guise of it being a health shake, or some other kind of innocuous beverage?
3. Questions 1 & 2 lead to the following: How would the new regulations, even had they been in effect before Flight 253, have prevented the terror attempt?  At least the regulations adopted in response to the liquid explosives plot in 2006 and the shoe bomber would have stopped them from carrying out their attacks.  But the recent regulations could have been easily thwarted.
   
4. Does "nothing on passengers' laps" include laptops, newspapers, and books?  What about an iPod in a passenger's pocket?  A book held in the air?  Do these count as "on the lap"?  The potential Talmudic hairsplitting of these new regulations is endless.
5. Will passengers have to beg to use the washroom during the last hour like children (I really, really have to go!!!").  Assuming flight attendants do not want passengers urinating on the floor of the cabin, the exceptions to these "regulations" will effectively render them moot.
6. Can you imagine the outrage when a flight is delayed in the air, and the passengers cannot leave their seats for the last hour and a half?  ("See?  I could have worked on my presentation for another half-hour!")  Do flight attendants really need this virtually-certain headache?
   
7. Will all writing implements be banned after a flight attendant is stabbed with a pen in an attempt to force her to get the pilots to open the cockpit door?  There comes a point at which one must recognize the absurdity of all the security regulations.  Our enemies must be laughing their heads off, seeing how insecure we all are.  They have won.
   

I realize, of course, that the TSA puts all of these regulations into effect in order to reassure the public that they are on the ball.  The result, however, is to further convince travelers that the TSA has no clue about how to deal with international terrorism, and is a) always defending against the last terror attack, and not the next, and b) refuses to go after people, but rather against objects.

As I have said for many years now, if I were on a flight packed with Mormons, priests, ministers, rabbis, nuns, and Miami Beach grandmothers et al, all of whom were packing heat, I would feel tremendously safe.  I have yet to hear of a terror attack committed by anyone from these groups.  If, however, I were on a flight with one 25-40-year-old Muslim male who had not been given extra security scrutiny, I would feel nervous.  I might even watch him carefully during the entire flight.  Does this make me an Islamophobe or a racist?  I am sure some might see it that way.  I see it as watching out for Number 1 and Number 1's loved ones, without regard for how such efforts will be perceived by others.

Finally, a pop quiz: What is the common denominator between the 1970s terrorists who precipitated the stringent security measures at international airports,  the Pan Am 103 bombers, all the way up to the above-mentioned liquid explosives plot, the shoe bomber, and the powder bomber?

I'll give you one guess.  But be careful in your guess; you might be labeled a racist.

Had the Ft. Hood murderer been a devout Jew or Christian...

Just when you think the media cannot be any more politically-correct (read falsifying the news), we hear about the slaughter of at least thirteen US soldiers and others at Ft. Hood, Texas.  Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan, an Army psychiatrist, was shot by fellow soldiers to end the killing spree.  And of which religious faith was he a member?  Surprise!  Islam.  But reading the vast majority of reports about the incident, one might never find this out.  We know that he was upset about his upcoming deployment to Iraq.  But are not more soldiers of this same feeling?  Why have they not burst out in anger as Maj. Hasan did, mowing down their fellow American servicemen and -women?  Here are the two New York Times stories of today, November 8, 2009:

• Painful stories take a toll on military therapists
• When soldiers snap

According to the Associated Press, Maj. Hasan shouted "Allahu Akbar!" before he began shooting.  A Google search of the New York Times comes up with zero references to this fact.  (Even the Huffington Post reported it!)  A few questions for my readers here:

1. Is it not noteworthy that what should be a beautiful phrase (God is great!) has become besmirched by the practitioners of one faith in particular?  For those who read things that are not being implied, I do not mean to say that all Muslims are terrorists, but that nearly all terrorists seem to be Muslim.  Are there Jewish terrorists?  Christian terrorists?  Yes and yes, of course.  But the scale is not even close, and terrorists of other faiths hardly ever claim that their actions are in fulfillment of their religion's dictates.  Muslim terrorists nearly always make it abundantly clear that their actions are motivated by a desire to worship their god.
2. Had the Ft. Hood shooter been a practicing Christian or Jew, and  cried out "Praise Jesus!" or "Am Yisrael Chai!" (the Jewish people live!) before shooting, would this fact not have been splayed over every headline about the attack?  Would we not have read demands to root out the evil from among the Christians and Jews, to ensure this would never re-occur?  The questions are rhetorical.
3. Why is the New York Times, flagship of mainstream liberal thought, barely mentioning the fact that Maj. Hasan was a practicing Muslim?  They have been focusing on other, possibly-related, aspects of the story, as mentioned above: the psychological effects of counseling so many soldiers returning from war, and the occasional occurrences of soldiers "snapping."  Is not Maj. Hasan's Muslim background, with parents from a small Palestinian town near Jerusalem, as relevant, if not more so, than the other Times perspectives?
4. On May 20, 2009, a Nidal Hasan wrote on scribb.com that a suicide bomber is the same as a soldier who jumps on a grenade to save his comrades' lives, since both committed suicide for a "noble cause."  In its mention of this, the Times wrote: "It could not be confirmed, however, that the writer was Major Hasan."  Is it possible that there was another Nidal Hasan who wrote this?  Undoubtedly yes.  Is it possible that had the Ft. Hood shooter been a Yaakov Moshe Goldberg, and a Yaakov Goldberg had posted a similar message months before, the Times would have offered the same disclaimer?  I will let you, my readers, decide.
   

As long as our media continue to whitewash terrorist acts by Muslims, there is no chance we will ever decisively defeat the terrorists.  In general, political correctness is an annoyance; when life, limb, and national security are at stake, it can be deadly.

President Obama's Cairo speech

President Obama delivered an important speech in Cairo on June 4, 2009. I believe that the naivete, wishful thinking, and distortions in his speech are beyond breathtaking. They are frightening. That we have a President who believes what he believes about the Arab/Muslim world, the history of the Jewish people, and world politics is cause for tremendous alarm. I urge you to read his speech deliberately, and then read the analysis articles which follow. Additionally, I have included excerpts from the speech, as well as my brief comments which follow. Anyone who cares about the security of the United States and the State of Israel should read his speech carefully, as this man chooses his words carefully. I look forward to reading your comments.

President Obama's speech
Caroline Glick in the Jerusalem Post
Charles Krauthammer in the Washington Post
Anne Bayefsky in National Review
• Prime Minister Netanyahu's response at Bar-Ilan
  

...tension has been fed by colonialism that denied rights and opportunities to many Muslims... - Of course, it is not Muslims' fault, it is the West's fault. Muslims need not be held accountable for their actions; they are victims. How does the President explain the fact that 15 of the 19 9-11 hijackers came from Saudi Arabia, a country that was never colonized? How does he explain India, freed from British colonization, which did not resort to terrorism against its former colonizers? (Thanks to Dennis Prager for pointing this out.)
Violent extremists have exploited these tensions... - He never ONCE uses the term "terror" or "terrorism." Does that not give anyone pause? How can one's major policy speech to the "Muslim world" be taken seriously without mentioning "terrorism" once?
...throughout history, Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality. - I am left speechless. On which planet, Mr. President?
...I also know civilization's debt to Islam. - Aside from suicide bombings and airplane hijackings, what has the Islamic world contributed over the past 500 years?
...Islam has always been a part of America's story. - Pure fiction, plain and simple. Aside from sports converts and Keith Ellison, can anyone name one famous Muslim-American who has "served in government...stood for civil rights...won Nobel Prizes"? Islam has never been part of America's story. Christianity and Judaism have.
...the aspiration for a Jewish homeland is rooted in a tragic history that cannot be denied. - This is crucial, a smoking gun. He has bought into the Arab propaganda. Israel was founded because of the Holocaust. No mention of the fact that there were two independent Jewish states there, and not one independent Arab/Muslim state. President Obama endorsed the Arab world's claim that if Europe committed the Holocaust, why should the Arabs be punished for it? And after hearing this line, they have every reason to believe he agrees with them.

Six million Jews were killed – more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. - Important and relevant point.
1. Denying that fact is baseless, ignorant, and hateful. - It is good that the President said this. It is a bit disturbing, however, that in the 21st-century, a President needs to make this point. It says frightening things about his audience, representatives of a group with whom we are supposed to make peace.
On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people – Muslims and Christians – have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. - Here comes the moral equivalence. Never mind that the Jews suffered from without, while the Palestinians' suffering was due to their leaders' intransigence to any sized Jewish state and their people's greater desire to murder Jews than to have a state of their own. A second point - why mention Christians? Have there been any Palestinian Christian suicide bombers? No. Why? Because something is rotten in the state of the Muslim world.
2. They endure the daily humiliations – large and small... - Whose fault are the "daily humiliations"? The Israelis', for not wanting to get blown up? And what of the humiliations Israelis must endure, being searched when they enter a mall or restaurant, and having to assure invited guests that the wedding reception with have security present? (Thanks to Rabbi Aryeh Scheinberg of San Antonio for this point.)
For decades, there has been a stalemate: two peoples with legitimate aspirations, each with a painful history that makes compromise elusive. - A "stalemate"?! What does one call the offer of total withdrawal after the Six Day War in exchange for peace? What of the complete withdrawal from Sinai? What if the complete withdrawal from Gaza? What of the offers of more than 90% of Judea and Samaria, a portion of Jerusalem for a Palestinian capital, and a partial return of refugees? What more would he have liked Israel to do? And he calls it a "stalemate"? Additionally, he equates the Jewish- and Palestinian "painful history." But one "painful history" was other-inflicted, while the other was self-inflicted.

3. Resistance through violence and killing is wrong and does not succeed. - Really? How, exactly, did the Palestinians get to the position they are on the world stage? By lying down in front of Israeli tanks, Tienanmen Square-style? Or was it by hijacking planes, slaughtering innocents at the Olympics, in an airport arrivals hall, and in a school? The Palestinians have shown that violence succeeds indeed! (Hence, nobody cares about Tibetan independence. They do not murder innocent Chinese, or any Chinese, for that matter.) And why did he add, "...and does not succeed"? If it did, would it then be acceptable?
For centuries, black people in America suffered the lash of the whip... - So now the Palestinian cause is as righteous as the Black cause for integration and equal rights? Simply breathtaking.
It is a sign of neither courage nor power to shoot rockets at sleeping children, or to blow up old women on a bus. That is not how moral authority is claimed; that is how it is surrendered. - Two powerful lines, but he had already undermined them with his previous moral equivalency statements. These lines had nothing to stand on.
4. The United States does not accept the legitimacy of continued Israeli settlements. - All previous understandings between the American and Israeli governments be damned. This is a tremendous policy shift. No President has ever been so blunt.
...I strongly reaffirmed America's commitment to seek a world in which no nations hold nuclear weapons. - Yes, Mr. President, and in Utopia, that might be possible. But on Earth, where I live, I would prefer the United States to have bigger guns than the bad people. Just like in my cities, I want the police to have bigger guns than the bad people, not ask the bad people to turn in their weapons.