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.

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.

What Norman Borlaug taught us about feeding the world

A great man died this past September.  Though he was one of the four living American recipients of the Nobel Peace Prize (including President Obama), most people in his native United States had never heard of him, but approximately one billion (yes, that's a b) people owe their lives to him.  The man's name was Norman Borlaug.  (See this Wall Street Journal article from September 16, 2009, and one from the Atlantic Monthly from January 1999.) How did he save so many lives?  By giving birth to the Green Revolution, which helped many societies in the developing world become self-sufficient, or nearly self-sufficient.  One of the major components of the Green Revolution was high-yield agriculture, which used the same amount of land as before, but also used pesticides and fertilizers.

And who opposed his techniques?  Environmentalists, who were upset that a) Africans were not farming in traditional ways, without tractors or modern farming techniques,  and b) as mentioned, high-yield agriculture required the use of pesticides and fertilizer.  In other words, they cared more about preserving classical farming techniques than in feeding hungry people, and they cared more about the possible impact of pesticides on some animal species than they did about the certain effects of no food on humans!  (Do I think they consciously decided this?  Of course not.  But we are concerned with results, not with intentions.  Had the environmentalists had their way, hundreds of millions would have starved.)

So what do we learn from Norman Borlaug and his efforts?

1. Don't rely on governments to solve the world's problems.  Turn to the private sector.  When even the  World Bank cut funding, Borlaug turned to Ryoichi Sasakawa, a Japanese investor, and also got the support of the Rockefeller- and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations.  Private enterprise will be more than willing to support an effort it thinks will succeed (read make them money).  Some will scoff at this notion - "One should want to do the right thing; you want to make money off of poor Central Americans and Africans?!"  I would answer in two ways: A) That is what anyone in a for-profit business is doing - making money off of those who want his product.  In effect, he is taking advantage of others' needs.  B) Why do you care?  Don't you want hungry people fed?  What difference does it make if someone makes money off of it?  If someone else can do it more efficiently for less money, the hungry will still get their food.
2. Environmentalists in general are much more concerned with saving plant- and animal life than with  saving human life.  Why else would they oppose Norman Borlaug?  Let us say that some animal species died as a direct result of Borlaug's agricultural efforts.  So what?  Is it more important to save an animal species, or to save hundreds of millions of human beings?  The same is true about the ban of DDT, which could have saved the lives of at least hundreds of thousands of Africans.  But since they care more about animals than about people, the environmentalists were willing to sacrifice the Africans on the altar of saving some birds.  Rachel Carson must be proud of the impact Silent Spring had.  Does anyone think that if asked, Africans would say, "Some birds might die due to DDT?  In that case, I'd be glad to let my children die of malaria.  Thanks for enlightening me"?  Yet to the environmentalists, the birds' value far outweighed the African villager's children's.
3. You need not be famous to be important.

If we imbue the lessons of Norman Borlaug, there is no telling how much actual (not theoretical) good we can do throughout the world.

Blacks upset Tiger cheated with white women. Seriously.

So it now appears that Tiger Woods cheated on his wife, Elin Nordegren, with at least a half-dozen women.  The fact that anyone is surprised by this amazes me.  The man had everything going for him in life, but everything going against him when it came to marital fidelity: One of the world's richest men, handsome, athletic, literally at the top of his profession et al.  This is a perfect recipe for thousands of attractive, young women to literally throw themselves at one's feet, in the hopes of getting close to a man with that combination of assets.  As a woman, Ms. Nordegren probably has no idea what kind of effect that can have on the most loyal of spouses.  But give in to his lower instincts Tiger did.  It seems like your typical athlete-adoring females-jilted wife story, right?

Wrong.  According to an NBC/MSNBC article, there are some blacks who are upset about the race of woman with whom Tiger chose to cheat!  I thought it was a joke, too.  But they're serious.  Apparently, there are a fair number of blacks who are resentful of the fact Tiger married a white, Swedish woman, and not "one of his own."  What is remarkable is the fact that Tiger Woods is as close as one can come to being a "post-racial" or "non-racial" person.  He has described himself as "Cablinasian" - a mixture of Caucasian, black, Indian, and Asian.  He does not consider himself as an ambassador of golf for blacks, because he does not consider himself one!  But they do consider him one.  And that is why they are upset that he chose to cheat outside of his race, as they see it.  As one black woman, Ebonie Johnson Cooper, put it, "...we still see him as a black man with a white woman, and it makes a difference.  There's just this preservation thing we have among one another. We like to see each other with each other."

Three questions for those blacks who are upset that Tiger cheated with white women:

1. How does it feel going around every day feeling that you are a victim, no matter how good America has been, overall, to your people?  I cannot imagine very well.
2. Why is it not OK for whites to desire to marry only intraracially (can you imagine the reaction if a public figure advocated only intraracial marriage among whites?) but it is OK for blacks to publicly express their desire that fellow blacks marry only other blacks?  Is that not anti-white-/Latino-/Asian racism?
3. What if it were your daughter or sister with whom Tiger cheated?  Would this make you satisfied, knowing that Tiger cheated "within the family"?

I think these are important questions to ask.  Those blacks who express frustration at the fact Tiger only cheated on his wife with white women make themselves look extremely foolish.  They should spend more time appreciating all of the opportunities America has afforded them and their children.

And be grateful it was not your daughter/sister on the news with Tiger.

Air America's Ron Reagan on/off the mark

Air America Radio's Ron Reagan was on and off this week, in his remarks criticizing Arizona Republican Congressman John Shadegg for suggesting that New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg's children might become terrorist targets for kidnapping, due to the upcoming Manhattan trial of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed (KSM).  Here are some excerpts from Mr. Reagan's comments, with my remarks:

• "...planting the idea of kidnapping the mayor's daughter in any wayward nutjob's head [involves potential risk to innocent people]..." - Mr. Reagan, you are correct to strongly criticize Rep. Shadegg for his comments, but do you really think that no "wayward nutjob" (read Radical Islamist terrorist) had thought of this possibility already?  I would be quite nervous to be in New York City during this trial, as every new day will bring with it the possibility that some terrorist will blow himself up, with the hopes that this act will contribute to the chances of KSM's release.  A more likely scenario would be the threat of blowing up various sites unless their demand for KSM's unconditional release is granted.  Just think: "There is a bomb somewhere in the Empire State Building.  Unless you release KSM in two hours, we will detonate it.  You do not have enough time to find it on your own.  When we knew he is safe, we will give you further instructions as to how to disarm the bomb."  Is this so out of the realm of possibility?  Does anyone think they have not considered this option?
  
• (In response to Rep. Shadegg's apology to Mayor Bloomberg, issued through the AP) "...as apologies go, that was really weak and transparently insincere, a little like retracting a front page error at the bottom of the obit page." - I agree completely.  If you are going to make the statement on the floor of the House, have the guts to issue the apology there, too, or call the person whom you offended.  I strongly agree that apologizers should be as open with their regrets as they were in making their remarks to begin with.  Issuing a statement to the AP just does not cut it.

For Ron Reagan this week, one thumb up, and one thumb down.

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.

Two opinion pieces on President Obama's silence on Iran

On Monday, September 14, I posted a piece on J Street's view on dealing with Iran. Here are two opinion pieces (admittedly from conservative sources) on President Obama's response to the Iranian elections. It is highly telling that President Obama has no compunctions about "meddling" in Israeli affairs (particularly with regard to Jewish communities in Judea and Samaria), with no fear of upsetting the Netanyahu government, but utters barely a word to the mullahs, Ahmadinejad, and the "Supreme Leader" in Iran. Not exactly a man of courage. There is no courage in talking tough to those whom you know will respond with deliberately-chosen, calm words. Courage is taking on the bully, the one who may respond by trying to punch you in the nose.

Punch him back much harder.

• Daily Telegraph, UK - Barack Obama's cowardly silence.
• Weekly Standard, US - Mr. President, another speech please.