===
How the immoral blind world wants to see it. (See 1 below.)
How the immoral blind world wants to see it. (See 1 below.)
Meanwhile, why liberal Jews still hang with Obama is beyond me but eventually they will hang alone.
(See 1a below.)
Do not know whether Terzian is Jewish but he gets it.(See 1b and 1c below.)
Only a few months ago Obama told us all the terrorist factions were defeated and those remaining were second string JV basketball players. Only yesterday Obama's Sec. of Defense informed us the JV's were the greatest threat in recent memory. Now what should rational people make of this dichotomy between our two great leaders?
It has long passed the time for Netanyahu to take off the gloves and start an all on attack on Hamas.
Israel is going to be accused of genocide regardless of what they do and vermin need to be wiped out and the added risk facing Israel now is Obama's call for added restrictions supplying them with munitions.
When Gazans suffer enough they might begin to understand they need to turn against Hamas which has brought them nothing but misery.
Israeli child killed by rocket launched from U.N. School!
Security sources: Mortar that killed boy was fired from UNRWA school
By Yoav Zitun
It has long passed the time for Netanyahu to take off the gloves and start an all on attack on Hamas.
Israel is going to be accused of genocide regardless of what they do and vermin need to be wiped out and the added risk facing Israel now is Obama's call for added restrictions supplying them with munitions.
When Gazans suffer enough they might begin to understand they need to turn against Hamas which has brought them nothing but misery.
Israeli child killed by rocket launched from U.N. School!
Security sources: Mortar that killed boy was fired from UNRWA school
By Yoav Zitun
Security sources claimed late Friday night that the mortar that earlier killed a 4-year-old boy in the Sha'ar HaNegev Regional Council had been fired by militants from within an UNRWA school in northern Gaza.(See 1d below.)
===
On the eve of Bastille Day, a group of Parisian Jews were trapped in a synagogue by pro-Palestinian rioters and had to be rescued by the police. A few weeks ago signs wereposted in Rome urging a boycott of 50 Jewish-owned businesses. In central London last week, anti-Israel protesters targeted a Sainsbury’s grocery, and the manager reflexively pulled kosher products off the shelves. (The supermarket chain later apologized.)
Nor am I comforted by the explanation that these actions are being taken by “disgruntled Muslim youth.” (By one estimate, 95 percent of anti-Semitic actions in France are committed by youths of Arab or African descent.) Many of these Muslims were born in Europe, and many of those who weren’t are the parents of a new generation of Europeans.
The telegram has arrived. Jews are worrying. It is time for those who value a free, democratic, open, multicultural and enlightened society to do so, too. This is not another Holocaust, but it’s bad enough.
The recent Perdue-Nunn debate video: http://www.13wmaz.com/ story/news/politics/2014/08/ 21/nunn-perdue-candidates- forum-us-senate-race/14387787/
Draw your own conclusions. I already made up my mind. I will not vote for Harry Reid even if he wears a skirt! He has 'dragged' this nation down far enough with his manipulative and intransigent conduct of the Senate!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Author: Louis René Beres
Now that the dust has begun to settle in Gaza after Israel's Operation Protective Edge, it is again easy to feel sorry for the beleaguered Palestinians. As everyone knows who looks at The New York Times and CNN, the lingering images are incontestably painful, and continue to look “asymmetrical” and “disproportionate.”
How could Hamas have been the aggressor when so many more Arabs than Israelis were killed? Surely the side with greater civilian losses must always be in the right. How could it be otherwise?
The people of Gaza (together with those many Israelis still forced to live under terrorist rocket attacks) are indeed victims of regional violence. But their victimization was not caused by any outside enemy. On the contrary, Palestinian suffering remains the direct result of a criminal Hamas leadership. Why is Hamas putting its weapons in the middle of homes, schools, hospitals and mosques in the first place?
Moreover, this Palestinian leadership sits safely away from Gaza, either tucked away in Qatar or the comfortable parts of Europe. “Martyrdom” is always welcomed, as long as it is someone else's.
Contrary to carefully scripted outbursts from Hamas, Israel's defensive responses were never gratuitous or contrived. Unlike their adversaries, Israelis receive absolutely no joy from killing others. Hamas, Islamic Jihad and related terror groups operating from Gaza, on the contrary, always seem to take calculated steps to ensure that Israeli reprisals will kill or injure Palestinian noncombatants. By directing elderly women and young children to those areas in Gaza from which lethal rockets will intentionally be launched into Israeli homes, hospitals, and schools — with the knowledge that the Israelis will have to return fire to the places from which the fire originated — Palestinian leaders openly violate the most elementary restrictions of the laws of war. Under international law, holding civilians in front of one as a shield is specified as a crime.
Ironically, these criminals are now proposing to bring Israel's leaders before the International Criminal Court.
Now, after an expectedly inconclusive end to Operation Protective Edge, several major Palestinian terror groups will begin to prepare for expanded attacks on Israel. Such attacks, possibly in cooperation with certain allied jihadist factions (perhaps even with the Islamic State, [IS], which is now slaughtering its way across Iraq), could include chemical or biological weapons of mass destruction. Over time, especially if Iran transfers some of its growing inventory of nuclear materials to terror groups, Israel could even face Palestinian-directed nuclear terrorism, perhaps launched from trucks and ships, as well as from nuclear-tipped rockets and missiles.
Should Iran be permitted to become nuclear-capable, as now seems a certainty, it could send ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads against Israel, as it has repeatedly threatened to do, despite the stipulations in the UN Charter that member states are prohibited from threatening each other. Israel's Arrow ballistic missile defense system would require a 100% rate of success, but no such system of perfect reliability is possible.
Israel has always tried during war to keep its essential counterterrorism operations in Gaza consistent with the established rules of international humanitarian law. By contrast, Palestinian violence has been persistent in violating all rules of engagement, despite the signed Oslo II Interim Agreement of 1995, Article XIV of which states that the West Bank and the Gaza Strip shall be completely demilitarized. [1]
Furthermore, although the word “occupation” has been tirelessly repeated in the media for a month, there is no “occupation” of Gaza. Every last Israeli left Gaza in 2005, in the hope that the Palestinians, reciprocally, would finally cease their self-destructive excursions into terror and instead use the opportunity to build a productive state. All restrictions on how goods could enter Gaza grew out of the concern, now seen as justified, that instead of building a productive state of its own, Hamas was using the material it imported to build a city of terror tunnels from which to attack Israel. What country could possibly permit that of a neighbor who keeps pledging to destroy it?
Louis René Beres was educated at Princeton (Ph.D., 1971), and is the author of many books and articles dealing with terrorism and international law. His most recent legal writings can be found in the Harvard National Security Journal (Harvard Law School); Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs; The International Journal of Intelligence and Counterintelligence; The Brown Journal of World Affairs; and Oxford University Press. Professor Beres' popular writings are published in US News & World Report; The Jerusalem Post; The New York Times; and The Atlantic. Dr. Beres was born at the end of World War II in Zürich, Switzerland.
[1] 3. Except for the Palestinian Police and the Israeli military forces, no other armed forces shall be established or operate in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
4. Except for the arms, ammunition and equipment of the Palestinian Police described in Annex I, and those of the Israeli military forces, no organization, group or individual in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip shall manufacture, sell, acquire, possess, import or otherwise introduce into the West Bank or the Gaza Strip any firearms, ammunition, weapons, explosives, gunpowder or any related equipment, unless otherwise provided for in Annex I.
1a) Obama deserts an ally in wartime
What kind of ally refuses to send you desperately needed weapons when you’re smack in the middle of a war?
Apparently, that’s what the Obama folks did with Israel, which is caught up fighting with Hamas. It’s unforgivable.
The decision came, it seems, after White House officials learned that, unbeknownst to them, Israel had gotten mortar shells and grenade-illuminating rounds from the Pentagon to use against Hamas, as The Wall Street Journal reported last week.
Officials say they were “blindsided” by the transfer. But it turns out that it was done as a matter of routine: No OK by the president or secretary of state was needed.
Still, the White House suddenly put all future transfers on hold, including a scheduled shipment of Hellfire missiles. And it ordered the Pentagon to consult with the executive branch and State Department before approving any future requests.
Obama folks downplayed the move and claims of a new tiff with Israel. They say reports that they held up missile shipments “does not indicate any change in policy.”
If true, though, what kind of a policy is it?
In any case, the animosity between President Obama and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is no secret. Just last week, the Journal reported, the men had a “particularly combative phone call.”
No doubt the White House is irked by the fact that its efforts to mediate an end to the fighting have fallen flat and that it’s been pushed to the sidelines as others, like Egypt, take up the role.
It also resents the fact that Israel insists on pursuing its right to self-defense and won’t give in to US pressure to make more concessions.
Yet none of that justifies lashing out against Israel — and holding up weapons — in the middle of a war.
If Israel suffers, and its terrorist enemies are emboldened, America’s own security interest abroad will be harmed. And if any ally still trusts us to have their back, they won’t anymore.
The president is letting his personal pique get the better of him. It’s unwise. And certainly no way treat a friend in wartime.
1b) When the U.S. Abdicates, Disaster Usually Follows
John McCain was mocked in 2008 when he said U.S. troops might stay for years in Iraq. He looks better now.
By PHILIP TERZIAN
The gradual disintegration of Iraq has prompted any number of backward glances: At President Obama and his policies; at the stewardship of Iraq's now ex-Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki ; at the forces of religion and tribalism. My own backward glance is to January 2008, and the early stages of the campaign for the Republican presidential nomination. At a town meeting in New Hampshire, candidate Sen. John McCain was asked to comment on President George W. Bush's assertion that American troops might have to remain in Iraq for 50 years.
"Maybe one hundred," Mr. McCain replied. "As long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed, it's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintain a presence in a very volatile part of the world where al Qaeda is training, recruiting, equipping, and motivating people every single day."
All hell broke loose in the media. Democratic candidates then-Sens. Hillary Clinton andBarack Obama swiftly condemned what was widely regarded as a gaffe. On CNN Mr. McCain felt obliged to clarify. "It's not a matter of how long we're in Iraq," he explained, alluding to our military presence in Japan, Germany and South Korea, "it's if we succeed or not.
In retrospect, Mr. McCain was correct: He predicted that setting a timetable for withdrawal would mean "chaos, that means genocide, that means undoing all the success we've achieved." This is now happening. But the press consensus, then as now, was that the American people were war-weary and a President McCain would perpetuate Mr. Bush's "failed" policies.
The truth is that at any given time the American people are weary (or wary) of war. They were surely war-weary in 1864, when Abraham Lincoln did not expect to be re-elected; and they were war-weary in early 1942 when Pearl Harbor had been bombed, the U.S. Navy devastated and the Army had surrendered to the Japanese on the Philippine island of Bataan. In 1949, there was a precursor of sorts to the McCain controversy when Secretary of State Dean Acheson was asked by an inquisitive senator if American troops might have to be stationed in postwar Western Europe to fortify NATO, and whether they might remain for five, or perhaps eight or 10, years?
"The answer to that question," replied Acheson, "is a clear and absolute 'no.' "
Acheson immediately regretted his response, and American troops were dispatched to Europe, where they remain 65 years later. U.S. troops still patrol the border between South and North Korea as well. This commitment has been expensive and perhaps wearisome for the soldiers involved. But would anyone suggest that our postwar commitment to European security was ill-advised, or that South Korea should be left to the mercies of the North? Very few shots have been fired in these outposts, but they have kept the peace and transformed the continents of Europe and Asia.
We have here an object lesson in statecraft: The duty of political leaders in perilous times is to lead, not follow, public opinion. And "war-weariness," whatever that means, is no excuse for dereliction of historic duty.
The much-admired former Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield (D., Mont.) routinely demanded the withdrawal of American troops from NATO, and just as routinely, senators from both parties rejected his counsel. But in the same year (1971, at the height of the Vietnam War) that the Mansfield Amendment came closest to success, gaining 36 votes, Democratic Sen. George McGovern began his presidential campaign with its theme of "Come home, America." McGovern was clobbered in the election, but 42 years later his isolationism is mainstream doctrine in his party.
The inconvenient lesson is that the withdrawal of American peacekeeping forces, in modern history, has almost invariably led to catastrophe. The departure of federal troops from the Reconstruction South paved the way for Jim Crow. The swift American exit from Europe after 1918 subtracted from the continent's collective security, leading to World War II. It might even be argued that the stabilizing influence of American troops in Haiti, Nicaragua and even interwar China did considerably more good than harm.
It is impossible to predict Iraq's future, and equally impossible to anticipate events in neighboring Syria. The sobering fact is that President Obama's disengagement from the region is a matter of political principle and he is unlikely to alter his course. But the evidence of American withdrawal is now palpable, and as clear as the images of ISIS atrocities. So which is more wearisome: The resolve to sustain our burden of leadership, or the prospect of a world in chaos and uncertainty?
Mr. Terzian, literary editor of the Weekly Standard, is the author of "Architects of Power: Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and the American Century," (ReadHowYouWant, 2012).
1c) Why Jews Are Worried
AN old Jewish joke goes like this: “What’s the definition of a Jewish telegram? ‘Start worrying. Details to follow.’ ”
I am often asked by fellow Jews about contemporary manifestations of anti-Semitism, particularly in Europe. “Is this just like 1939? Are we on the cusp of another Holocaust?” Until now, my answer has been an unequivocal “no.” I have criticized community leaders who, either out of genuine concern or to advance their own purposes, use Holocaust analogies to describe contemporary conditions. These claims are ahistorical. They overstate what is going on now and completely understate the situation in 1939.
The differences between then and now are legion. When there is an outbreak of anti-Semitism today, officials condemn it. This is light-years away from the 1930s and 1940s, when governments were not only silent but complicit. Memory also distinguishes the present from previous events. Now, in contrast to the 1930s, we know matters can escalate. Jews today are resolute in their determination: “Never again.”
And despite all this I wonder if I am too sanguine. Last month, pro-Gaza protesters on Kurfürstendamm, the legendary avenue in Berlin, chanted, “Jews, Jews, cowardly swine.” Demonstrators in Dortmund and Frankfurt chanted, “Hamas, Hamas; Jews to the gas!” And a pro-Hamas marcher in Berlin broke away from the crowd and assaulted an older man who was quietly standing on a corner holding an Israeli flag.
On the eve of Bastille Day, a group of Parisian Jews were trapped in a synagogue by pro-Palestinian rioters and had to be rescued by the police. A few weeks ago signs wereposted in Rome urging a boycott of 50 Jewish-owned businesses. In central London last week, anti-Israel protesters targeted a Sainsbury’s grocery, and the manager reflexively pulled kosher products off the shelves. (The supermarket chain later apologized.)
It would be simple to link all this outrage to events in Gaza. But this trend has been evident for a while.
In March 2012, four people were killed at a Jewish day school in Toulouse, France. (Last month, a Jewish community center there was firebombed.) In December 2012, Israeli officials warned Jewish men who wanted to visit synagogues in Denmark not to don their skullcaps until they were inside the building. It is increasingly common for Jewish tourists in Western Europe to avoid carrying anything that might distinguish them as such. A shooting at the Jewish Museum in Brussels in May, a month before the latest Gaza conflict began, killed four people.
I am unpersuaded by those who try to dismiss what is happening as “just rhetoric.” It is language, after all, that’s at the heart of the ubiquitous slippage from anger at Israeli military action to hatred of Jews.
Nor am I comforted by the explanation that these actions are being taken by “disgruntled Muslim youth.” (By one estimate, 95 percent of anti-Semitic actions in France are committed by youths of Arab or African descent.) Many of these Muslims were born in Europe, and many of those who weren’t are the parents of a new generation of Europeans.
It’s true that this is not the anti-Semitism of the 1930s, which came from the right and was rooted in longstanding Christian views that demonized the Jews. Traditionally, Islam did not treat Jews this way. But in the past century a distinct strain of Muslim anti-Semitism has emerged. Built on a foundation of antipathy toward non-Muslims, it mixes Christian anti-Semitism — imported to the Middle East by European missionaries — and a more leftist, secular form of anti-Semitism. It is evident in political cartoons, editorials, television shows and newspaper articles.
The Hamas charter is an example. It contains references to “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” a notorious forgery created by Russian czarist police officers in 1903 and later used as Nazi propaganda. The charter accuses Jews of relying on secret societies to foment global economic and political disasters. It calls on adherents to prepare for “the next round with the Jews, the merchants of war.”
The rationales — “it’s just rhetoric,” “it’s just Muslims” — bother me almost as much as the outrages. Instead of explaining away these actions, cultural, religious and academic leaders in all the countries where these events have occurred should be shaken to the core, not just about the safety of their Jewish neighbors, but about the future of the seemingly liberal, enlightened societies they belong to. Yet when a Hamas spokesman recently stood by his statement that Jews used the blood of non-Jewish children for their matzos — one of the oldest anti-Semitic canards around — European elites were largely silent.
Seventy years after the Holocaust, many Jews in Europe no longer feel safe. Hiring an armed guard to protect people coming for weekly prayer is not the action of a secure people. In too many cities worldwide, directions to the local synagogue conclude with, “You will recognize it by the police car in front of the building.” France has seen a sharp rise in the number of Jews who have decided to emigrate (though the figures are still fairly small).
The telegram has arrived. Jews are worrying. It is time for those who value a free, democratic, open, multicultural and enlightened society to do so, too. This is not another Holocaust, but it’s bad enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment