Our youngest grandchildren and first cousins.Blake,Stella,Max and Dagny.
The first op ed was sent by a friend and fellow memo reader and the second was written by a friend and fellow memo reader. Both put in perspective their thoughts, as well as mine, about the recent episode involving Representative's Tlaib and Omar's desire to enter Israel to stir up trouble and how the Israeli government and American Jewish (non-Jews,) responded either out of ignorance, cowardice or because they are beyond redemption. Bernie Sanders typifies who they are. (See 1 and 1a below.)
American Jews who are willing to allow anti-Semitism to become acceptable and who close their eyes to those who seek the destruction of Israel will rue the day when they too become the victims.
https://m.facebook.com/story.
Hillel " If I am not for myself, who will be for me"
Jon Barry writes: "I would argue that the goals of BDS do not end with Israel but ultimately threaten all free societies wherever they exist."
Ben Stein and I are on the same page. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Mullahs are watching:
https://www.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Erick Erickson has it about right. (See 3 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Just returned from S.C Mountains and a visit with dear friends.
Dick
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1)
The great ‘non-visit’
By DOUGLAS ALTABEF
The recent controversial non-visit by US Reps. Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib provided many people with a platform to discuss the implications of what happened. But what if these two would-be visitors had come? Would we be as insightful on that score? And which would have been worse for Israel?
The widespread sentiment expressed was that Israel erred in not inviting the two Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) supporters. The reasons ranged from our being “bigger” than those who dislike us, to our having opened a Pandora’s Box of partisan recrimination against us; recrimination for not honoring congressional representatives, and even worse, for capitulating to President Donald Trump’s none-too-subtle exhortation that they should not be allowed in.
AIPAC was upset because the women are congresswomen, and all members of Congress are fair game for AIPAC to expose to Israel. Its mission, after all, is to keep support for Israel a bipartisan axiom in Congress.
Others thought that Israel looked small, petty and as if it had something to hide. Still others thought that Israel had been outmaneuvered into showing itself as ultimately not being so open and democratic after all.
These were fairly immediate reactions. They were expressed before the “Grandmother Incident,” in which Interior Minister Arye Deri said he would grant, as a humanitarian gesture, an invitation for Rep. Tlaib to visit her grandmother in a Palestinian village in Judea and Samaria if the congresswoman would agree to refrain from any BDS activities while here.
Rep. Tlaib did in fact ask for such an invitation, and specifically said she would forego any BDS activity while here. So the invitation was granted.
Hours later she demurred, saying that not being able to speak her mind would be like “killing a piece of me.” So much for grandma.
This little cha-cha was to my way of thinking actually quite revealing. It spoke volumes as to the motivation for their wanting to come in the first place. The release of the supposed itinerary also showed that this was no getting-to-know-you AIPAC type of trip.
In fact, given that it was sponsored under the auspices of Miftah, a leading BDS proponent and major de-legitimizer of Israel, it was a Palestinian-getting-to-know-
The Israeli interactions were to be with fellow travelers B’Tselem and Breaking the Silence, each of which would have been happy to join the anti-Israel pile-on.
So let’s ask ourselves: Did Israel do the right thing? And the corollary question: Did Israel do the smart thing?
Answering the first question must take into account the reality that Israel is subject to a double standard applied to few if any other countries in the world. For example, Israel has a law that allows it to bar entry into the country for those who are entering for the assumed purpose of engaging in BDS activities. This law is a variation on the theme that says a democracy is not a suicide pact, and even democracies have the right to protect themselves.
IS ISRAEL not allowed to apply its law? Is the law not worth the paper it’s printed on? Or is to be waived based on particular circumstance?
That, by the way, is exactly what Israel initially did. It waived the law based on a desire to respect two sitting American congressional representatives. Perhaps there was a hope that they would have an eye-opening, smoke-clearing meeting with senior Israeli officials, or an exposure to coexistence and harmony between Arabs and Jews.
However, when the itinerary was shown to the government, it became apparent that this was no fact-finding mission, but an ideological commando raid designed very much to show Israel as the occupier.
The crowning touch might have been the desire to ascend the Temple Mount in the company of Palestinian Authority officials. This would have not only been provocative, it would have been also a disaster for the shred of Israeli sovereignty that still applies to that most sensitive place.
So the government decided that the anti-entry law was quite appropriate, and this was not the exception that proves the rule.
Was this then a smart decision? As mentioned, Israel is living with the consequences of what it did. But what about the consequences of what it didn’t allow, the consequences of an actual visit?
I suggest that the visit would have been a nightmare for Israel, one with possibly far worse implications than might initially had been conceived. The two women are skilled demagogues, and everywhere they would have gone would have been an up close and personal indictment and delegitimization slugfest.
Israel would have been on the defensive, and as it often is, and not very effective or compelling in its responses.
The greater damage would have taken place on their return as the two would have sought to whip up anti-Israel sentiment in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party based on their personal experiences.
They would have pulled the center of gravity of the party toward the left-wing position (as they have been doing on several fronts), which is increasingly hostile to Israel.
While those who are upset with Israel’s decision believe it will weaken bi-partisan support (meaning Democratic support), the aftermath of the Magical Misery Tour would have been intense criticism of an “apartheid, colonialist regime.”
It is hard for many Israelis to understand just how toxic American political discourse has become. Given the Democratic hatred of all things Trump or Trump-related, Israel, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in particular, are walking around with targets on their backs. In the world of intersectionality, with designated victims and designated oppressors, Israel and, increasingly, Jews are being categorized as bad guys.
The visit would have heavily played into this narrative and mindset.
While we can never know the implications of that which did not happen, my strong intuition is that notwithstanding the current criticism, Israel dodged a bullet.
The widespread sentiment expressed was that Israel erred in not inviting the two Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) supporters. The reasons ranged from our being “bigger” than those who dislike us, to our having opened a Pandora’s Box of partisan recrimination against us; recrimination for not honoring congressional representatives, and even worse, for capitulating to President Donald Trump’s none-too-subtle exhortation that they should not be allowed in.
AIPAC was upset because the women are congresswomen, and all members of Congress are fair game for AIPAC to expose to Israel. Its mission, after all, is to keep support for Israel a bipartisan axiom in Congress.
Others thought that Israel looked small, petty and as if it had something to hide. Still others thought that Israel had been outmaneuvered into showing itself as ultimately not being so open and democratic after all.
These were fairly immediate reactions. They were expressed before the “Grandmother Incident,” in which Interior Minister Arye Deri said he would grant, as a humanitarian gesture, an invitation for Rep. Tlaib to visit her grandmother in a Palestinian village in Judea and Samaria if the congresswoman would agree to refrain from any BDS activities while here.
Rep. Tlaib did in fact ask for such an invitation, and specifically said she would forego any BDS activity while here. So the invitation was granted.
Hours later she demurred, saying that not being able to speak her mind would be like “killing a piece of me.” So much for grandma.
This little cha-cha was to my way of thinking actually quite revealing. It spoke volumes as to the motivation for their wanting to come in the first place. The release of the supposed itinerary also showed that this was no getting-to-know-you AIPAC type of trip.
In fact, given that it was sponsored under the auspices of Miftah, a leading BDS proponent and major de-legitimizer of Israel, it was a Palestinian-getting-to-know-
The Israeli interactions were to be with fellow travelers B’Tselem and Breaking the Silence, each of which would have been happy to join the anti-Israel pile-on.
So let’s ask ourselves: Did Israel do the right thing? And the corollary question: Did Israel do the smart thing?
Answering the first question must take into account the reality that Israel is subject to a double standard applied to few if any other countries in the world. For example, Israel has a law that allows it to bar entry into the country for those who are entering for the assumed purpose of engaging in BDS activities. This law is a variation on the theme that says a democracy is not a suicide pact, and even democracies have the right to protect themselves.
IS ISRAEL not allowed to apply its law? Is the law not worth the paper it’s printed on? Or is to be waived based on particular circumstance?
That, by the way, is exactly what Israel initially did. It waived the law based on a desire to respect two sitting American congressional representatives. Perhaps there was a hope that they would have an eye-opening, smoke-clearing meeting with senior Israeli officials, or an exposure to coexistence and harmony between Arabs and Jews.
However, when the itinerary was shown to the government, it became apparent that this was no fact-finding mission, but an ideological commando raid designed very much to show Israel as the occupier.
The crowning touch might have been the desire to ascend the Temple Mount in the company of Palestinian Authority officials. This would have not only been provocative, it would have been also a disaster for the shred of Israeli sovereignty that still applies to that most sensitive place.
So the government decided that the anti-entry law was quite appropriate, and this was not the exception that proves the rule.
Was this then a smart decision? As mentioned, Israel is living with the consequences of what it did. But what about the consequences of what it didn’t allow, the consequences of an actual visit?
I suggest that the visit would have been a nightmare for Israel, one with possibly far worse implications than might initially had been conceived. The two women are skilled demagogues, and everywhere they would have gone would have been an up close and personal indictment and delegitimization slugfest.
Israel would have been on the defensive, and as it often is, and not very effective or compelling in its responses.
The greater damage would have taken place on their return as the two would have sought to whip up anti-Israel sentiment in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party based on their personal experiences.
They would have pulled the center of gravity of the party toward the left-wing position (as they have been doing on several fronts), which is increasingly hostile to Israel.
While those who are upset with Israel’s decision believe it will weaken bi-partisan support (meaning Democratic support), the aftermath of the Magical Misery Tour would have been intense criticism of an “apartheid, colonialist regime.”
It is hard for many Israelis to understand just how toxic American political discourse has become. Given the Democratic hatred of all things Trump or Trump-related, Israel, and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in particular, are walking around with targets on their backs. In the world of intersectionality, with designated victims and designated oppressors, Israel and, increasingly, Jews are being categorized as bad guys.
The visit would have heavily played into this narrative and mindset.
While we can never know the implications of that which did not happen, my strong intuition is that notwithstanding the current criticism, Israel dodged a bullet.
1a)
The implosion of American Jewry
By Isi Liebler
|
Over the past decade, the Jewish establishment leadership in America – with the exception of the Orthodox, the Zionist Organization of America, and other small groups – has failed to speak up in defense of Israel and imposed a curtain of silence. This became blatantly evident during the presidency of Barack Obama, who diplomatically related to Israel as a rogue state, employing moral equivalence toward Israeli defenders and victims and Palestinian terrorists.
Much of the hostility to Israel within the Democratic Party can be attributed to the passiveness of non-Orthodox American Jews – a byproduct of the Jewish illiteracy of younger generations. Many of these consider support for social radicalism to be a far higher priority than support for Israel.
Mainstream Jewish leadership has of late failed to castigate those “non-Jewish Jews” who misrepresent Judaism by assuming leading roles in the hysterical partisan war against US President Donald Trump. Some even assert that Jewish groups endorsing the right of their members to promote anti-Israel boycotts, divestment and sanctions should not necessarily be left out of the “big tent.”
Anti-Jewish and anti-Israel agitation has become endemic on most university campuses, discouraging Jews from identifying themselves and disrupting the few pro-Israel spokesmen from presenting their case.
With the election of Trump, these trends accelerated to such an extent that support for Israel by the majority of Jews can no longer be taken for granted.
Despite his weaknesses and a tendency to be confrontationist, Trump has supported Israel more than any past American president. He has also adopted Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s determination to prevent Iran becoming a nuclear power.
Even considering that the majority of American Jews have traditionally supported the Democrats, it is incomprehensible that they stand out as the most anti-Trump minority in the nation. The fact that Trump’s daughter converted and is an observant Jew and that he has surrounded himself with Jews has not inhibited Jewish Democrats from defaming him with false claims of anti-Semitism and racism.
Compounding this, non-Orthodox Jews tend not to convey their partisan hysteria as individual Americans but rather frame their protests in a Jewish context, employing distorted ideological rationales such as comparing Trump’s restrictive immigration rules to Nazi policies and migrant detention centers to concentration camps, and using Holocaust-related slogans like “Never again.”
Jewish organizations such as the Anti-Defamation League and non-Orthodox religious leaders, which in the past avoided adopting partisan political positions, openly display bias against Trump, concentrating on right-wing anti-Jewish outbursts for which they blame him and downplay widespread leftist and Islamic anti-Semitism.
One byproduct of this has been the dramatic erosion of bipartisan congressional support for Israel. Democratic radicals sense weakness and division among Jews, who now tolerate those within their own ranks who condemn Israel’s ongoing “occupation” and promote BDS.
Three extreme anti-Israel radicals – Ilhan Omar, Rashida Tlaib, and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez – won office in the recent congressional elections. In addition to intense anti-Israel rhetoric, their outright anti-Semitic outbursts include justifications of terrorism, support for BDS, allegations that American Jews held dual loyalties, and denunciations of Israel for “evil doings” and having “hypnotized the world.”
Despite this,US House Speaker Nancy Pelosi appointed Ocasio-Cortez and Tlaib to both the House Oversight Committee – the most important investigative body – and the Financial Services Committee. Omar was given a spot on the influential House Foreign Affairs Committee. The protest against these appointments was led by Trump with the Jewish establishment initially remaining silent
The issue exploded when, a day after having passionately promoted BDS, Tlaib and Omar requested entry visas to Israel. Initially, Israeli Ambassador Ron Dermer indicated that their requests would be approved, but two weeks later, the government flip-flopped and rejected their applications.
The subsequent tension with the Democrats was only partially eased when Tlaib’s appeal on humanitarian grounds to visit her 90-year-old grandmother was granted, subject to her not engaging in BDS activities during her visit. But after receiving approval, following her written undertaking not to engage in such activities, she decided not to accept, citing humiliating conditions.
One cannot refute that Israel had the right to implement its own laws and deny entry to two congresswomen who had been promoting BDS, meeting with Hamas and Hezbollah supporters, engaging in anti-Semitic rhetoric, and displaying an itinerary of their “Palestine” trip geared to defame Israel. And if they truly wanted to visit Israel, they could have joined their 41 Democratic colleagues in Congress who, along with 31 Republican congressmen, did so this month.
It should be noted that the sponsor of their proposed visit, Miftah, headed by Palestinian Hanan Ashrawi, is an extremist Palestinian group that has praised suicide bombers, supports BDS and accuses Israel of massacring children. Its website even published an article written by staff member Nawaf al-Zaru alleging that Jews drink the blood of Christians on Passover.
The denial of entry to undesirable foreign government officials by democratic countries has many precedents. The UK denied entry to Menachem Begin in the early 1950s, when he was a Knesset member. Narendra Modi was denied a visa to the US in 2005, when he was chief minister of the Indian state of Gujarat. In 2002, Tarek William Saab, then a member of Venezuela’s National Assembly, was refused entry to the US. Austrian President Kurt Waldheim was banned from entering the US from 1987 until his death in 2007. More to the point, in 2012 the US denied an entry visa to far-right MK Michael Ben-Ari.
It is doubtful if American officials – including Democrats – would agree to grant an entry visa to a parliamentarian who openly supported terrorism against them and was engaged in activity to delegitimize the American government. As far as Israel is concerned, Tlaib and Omar’s pro-BDS sentiments amount to support for Israel’s destruction and their sympathy for terrorists such as Rasmea Odeh is support for terror.
After Israel rejected their visa requests, they falsely accused Netanyahu and Trump of silencing them, sharing an image by the infamous cartoonist Carlos Latuff, who placed second in Iran’s “Holocaust Cartoon Competition.”
It is alleged that Israel’s reversal was influenced by Trump, who tweeted that Israel would be displaying weakness if it granted entry to the congresswomen.
Whatever the rationale justifying their exclusion, reversing the initial approval inevitably resulted in a no-win situation. In addition to the excluded pair misrepresenting themselves as martyrs, accusing Israel of racism and denial of freedom of expression, it provided a vehicle for the radicals to unite the Democrats against Israel.
In contrast to previous occasions, most of the 23 contenders for the Democratic presidential nomination are already on record appeasing the radicals and at best avoiding any reference to Israel.
Even former Vice President Joe Biden, currently the leading contender and considered a moderate, stated, “I will insist on Israel, which I’ve done, to stop the occupation of those territories, period.”
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, currently second in the polls, is Jewish and a former kibbutz volunteer. Yet he boycotts AIPAC, condemns Israel for maintaining the “ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza,” rails against the “occupation,” and sees Netanyahu as part of a “new authoritarian axis.” He undertakes, if elected president, to cut military aid and support from Israel unless it changes its policies.
Senator Elizabeth Warren, third in the polls, clearly stated she was opposed to the “occupation.” More disconcerting is the fact that she appointed Max Berger as her director for progressive partnerships. Berger was a cofounder of the virulent anti-Israel organization IfNotNow and spearheaded Ocasio-Cortez’s 2018 defeat of Joe Crowley in the Democratic primary for New York's 14th congressional district. It is unprecedented for a major aspirant to the presidency to have chosen such a rabid anti-Zionist as a key aide.
Nearly all Democratic leaders, and even some Republican friends, condemned Israel’s refusal to grant the visas. A group of Democrats bizarrely sought to initiate a congressional resolution censuring the American and Israeli ambassadors, demonstrating the extent to which even congressional friends of Israel were succumbing to pressure by the radicals.
This also applies to Jews. Almost all the establishment groups, including the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, AIPAC, and the American Jewish Committee, joined the pack criticizing Israel. Whether Israel was right or wrong, this was an improper intervention by Jewish mainstream organizations which should have remained silent or at least pointed out the historical precedents.
Although the media has exaggerated and inflamed the situation, the majority of Democrats would still support Israel. Yet wide segments of American Jewry remain silent while the Democratic Party radicals gain increasing influence. Should this trend continue and result in bipartisanship breaking down, this would unquestionably undermine one of the principal pillars of Israeli security.
This is a challenge to American Jewry.
There are still large groups of Orthodox and even secular Jews who remain passionately committed to the Jewish state. What they lack is a national leadership willing to stand up and be counted and not seek to appease the radicals by ignoring the deviants distorting Judaism to promote their political agendas.
Jewish leaders and especially AIPAC must intensify their activities in the Democratic Party, the bulk of which remains supportive of Israel. The party last month explicitly condemned BDS. Even Pelosi, after condemning the Israeli government, stressed that the bipartisan relationship based on shared values and common interests must take priority over temporary political differences.
More importantly, polls show that Israel’s standing with the American public – and not only among evangelical Christians who have emerged as the most powerful political lobby for the Jewish state – is currently at an all-time high.
|
Isi Leibler may be contacted at ileibler@leibler.com
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2)
|
| Only hope we find GOD again before it is too late ! ! The following was written by Ben Stein and recited by him on CBS Sunday Morning Commentary. My confession: I don't like getting pushed around for being a Jew, and I don't think Christians like getting pushed around for being Christians. I think people who believe in God are sick and tired of getting pushed around, period. I have no idea where the concept came from, that America is an explicitly atheist country. I can't find it in the Constitution and I don't like it being shoved down my throat... Or maybe I can put it another way: where did the idea come from that we should worship celebrities and we aren't allowed to worship God as we understand Him? I guess that's a sign that I'm getting old, too. But there are a lot of us who are wondering where these celebrities came from and where the America we knew went to. In light of the many jokes we send to one another for a laugh, this is a little different: This is not intended to be a joke; it's not funny, it's intended to get you thinking. In light of recent events... terrorists attack, school shootings, etc.. I think it started when Madeleine Murray O'Hare (she was murdered, her body found a few years ago) complained she didn't want prayer in our schools, and we said OK. Then someone said you better not read the Bible in school... The Bible says thou shalt not kill; thou shalt not steal, and love your neighbor as yourself. And we said OK. Then Dr. Benjamin Spock said we shouldn't spank our children when they misbehave, because their little personalities would be warped and we might damage their self-esteem (Dr. Spock's son committed suicide). We said an expert should know what he's talking about.. And we said okay.. Now we're asking ourselves why our children have no conscience, why they don't know right from wrong, and why it doesn't bother them to kill strangers, their classmates, and themselves. Probably, if we think about it long and hard enough, we can figure it out. I think it has a great deal to do with 'WE REAP WHAT WE SOW.' Funny how simple it is for people to trash God and then wonder why the world's going to hell. Funny how we believe what the newspapers say, but question what the Bible says. Funny how you can send 'jokes' through e-mail and they spread like wildfire, but when you start sending messages regarding the Lord, people think twice about sharing. Funny how lewd, crude, vulgar and obscene articles pass freely through cyberspace,but public discussion of God is suppressed in the school and workplace. Are you laughing yet? Funny how when you forward this message,you will not send it to many on your address list because you're not sure what they believe, or what they will think of you for sending it. Funny how we can be more worried about what other people think of us than what God thinks of us. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 3) Yes the President’s Behavior is Abnormal. But the Democrats’ Policies are Bat Crap Crazy.By Erick Erickson
I'd rather a President who wants to build a big beautiful wall than a Democrat who pretends there is no problem at the border.
I'd rather a President who moves our embassy to Jerusalem than a Democrat who'd put one in Havana.
I'd rather a President who imposes tariffs than a Democrat who wants to ban paper straws, plastic bags, and human consumption of cows while imposing a carbon tax.
I'd rather a President who makes it difficult every day to support him than a Democrat who would make it difficult for a person of faith to exercise their religion in their work and daily life.
The President may be nuts in his behavior, but I'll take his crazy over the insanity the Democrats who unleash on the United States.
The post Yes the President’s Behavior is Abnormal. But the Democrats’ Policies are Bat Crap Crazy. appeared first on The Resurgent.
Read in browser +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ |
No comments:
Post a Comment