Terrorism Favored Over Developed Nations. Israel Must Win Wars Against Two Enemies!

===
It is both ironical and sad that developed nations are more vulnerable to terrorism than terrorists are to the overwhelming power of developed nations.

Why is this so?  There are several reasons but they need not be conclusive if developed nations muster the will.

a) Developed nations have an economic sensitivity whereas,  terrorists do not, ie. closing airports, restraining commerce and tourism. etc.

b) Terrorists have no regard for casualties whether of their own or those they attack. Uncivilized behaviour can and often does triumph over civilized responses.

c) Developed nations' populace are not quick to respond to threats that afflict others in distant lands.  There is not enough moral outrage to cause them to discomfort themselves. Witness the slaughter of Christians that is currently ongoing.

d) Developed nations require leadership that can shake them out of their torpor when their is no evident and recognizable immediate danger.

e) From a pure military viewpoint, developed nations cannot win against terrorists simply by using their technology.  They must engage on the ground, sustain casualties, which they are often reluctant to endure, and, in the process,  must also be willing to ignore the destruction and harm caused innocents trapped in such circumstances. (ee 2a below.)

f) In a general sense, terrorists have a psychological advantage.  Yes, they can overplay their hand and bring powerful wrath down upon themselves but not before the stakes increase.

g) If citizens of developed nations do not see the possibility of victory they are less willing to engage and victory against terrorists is not as recognizable or obtainable as when nations fight each other.

h) When leaders of developed nations do not understand their enemy they are not likely to or be capable of responding or developing an effective strategy.

For these reasons and more, the struggle to defeat terrorists will be difficult, long and possibly impossible.

This is the position I find both Israel, America and Europe in at the present time.

Whereas,Israel has leadership that understands the threat the nation  faces,  the world is unwilling to allow them to do what they need  to bring Hamas and other terrorists challenging Israel to their knees.

As for America, we have a different problem. We have a president who is averse to military engagements, cannot bring himself to understand the threat from radical Islamists because he is sympathetic to Muslims and is basically an incompetent and lazy leader.

Europe is energy dependent and commerce vulnerable, has allowed themselves to be overrun by Muslim immigration, have lost their moral gyroscope and also have weak leadership.

Where all this ends is anyone's guess but I suspect the pain and destruction level will be greater than many forecast or believe.
===
Michelle Nunn is another vote for Reid!  I supported Kingston because he would have made the best choice to be our next Senator but I will go with Perdue over Reid any day. (See 1 below.)
===
Israel must win any war twice. Once, on the ground and second in the news and media. They must overcome two enemies.  (See 2 below.)

Will Netanyahu survive not winning?  Israelis, unlike Americans, do not like not winning because, in their neighborhood, if you do not win you lose.

Therefore, Hamas, may wind up with a much tougher, right wing government to contend with down the road.  (See 2a below.)
===
Could a re-run win? (See 3 below.)
===
Dick
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1)"I Defer to the President's Judgment..."

In a rare moment of honesty, 

Michelle Nunn sums up her governing philosophy in just six words

When asked about the tragedies at VA hospitals across the country and here in Georgia voters got a rare moment of candor from Nunn who shared her true governing philosophy:"I defer to the president's judgment..."

As recently as last week, Michelle Nunn said she would be open to future military cuts. When asked by reporters, she left the door open by saying: "I disagree about cutting our military at this juncture."

Nunn Leaves the Door Open for Military Cuts

"Michelle Nunn has proven time and again she is no friend of the military," said John Padgett, Chairman for the Georgia Republican Party.  

"Nunn has made it clear that her entire governing philosophy will be to 'defer' to Obama rather than protecting Georgia's veterans.  Nunn has publicly stated she's keeping the door open for cuts to our military that could cripple Georgia's base communities.  

 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2)  Embracing the obvious truth

By Caroline B. Glick

It isn't hard to understand the truth about Israel and Hamas.

Four-year-old Daniel Tragerman was murdered on Friday afternoon in his home in Kibbutz Nahal Oz by Hamas terrorists.

They shot him with a mortar launched from a school in Gaza's Zeitoun neighborhood. At the time of the launch, the school was filled with civilians who had fled to the school for shelter.

They fled to the school for shelter because they were forced to vacate their homes.

They were forced to vacate their homes because Hamas terrorists were launching mortars and rockets at Israeli civilian sites, like Daniel Tragerman's home, from their apartment buildings.

The moral and ideological divide between Israel and Hamas is so self-evident that the only way to ignore it is by embracing and cultivating ignorance.

This week Richard Behar published an in-depth investigative report in Forbes documenting how the US media is doing just that. As Behar demonstrated, the media is collaborating with Hamas in its war against Israel.

Behar cited example after example of how the US media, led by The New York Times have systematically ignored, obfuscated and downplayed Hamas's war crimes while swallowing whole its bogus statistics and accusations against Israel.

The greatest threat to faux reporters like the New York Times Israel bureau chief Jodi Rudoren and her colleagues are people who refuse to accept their distortions and insist that the truth be told.

The most dangerous of the truth tellers are the non- Jews who stand up for Israel.

This week, former British Labour MP Denis MacShane published an op-ed in Haaretz where he spoke to this point. MacShane argued that for Israel to win the information war being waged against it must cultivate non-Jewish defenders.

In his words, "The British media... is awash with defenders of Hamas and Palestinian resistance. Hardly any are Muslims. In contrast, the prominent journalists — Jonathan Freedland, Daniel Finkelstein, Melanie Phillips, David Aaronovich — who support Israel are, well, Jews."

MacShane argued that because they are Jews, readers dismiss them.

They "shrug their shoulders and think privately: 'They would say that, wouldn't they."

Israel has an enormous reserve of support among non-Jews. But due to the mainstream media's commitment to dishonesty and deliberate cultivation of public ignorance and moral blindness in their coverage of Israel, for many, the price of defending Israel is becoming prohibitive.

Israel's enemies in the West do their best to reinforce this perception.

Consider the case of Jon Voight.

The celebrated Oscar-winning actor is an outspoken champion of Israel. Earlier this month, Voight published an open letter to Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem in Variety where he harshly criticized the Spanish performers for their public statement condemning Israel and siding with Hamas in its war against the Jewish state.

In his words, "I am heartsick that people like Penelope Cruz and Javier Bardem could incite anti-Semitism all over the world and are oblivious to the damage they have caused."

Voight was viciously attacked for speaking out.

Last week, two UCLA professors, Mark LeVine and Gil Hochberg, co-authored an article published in The Huffington Post assaulting him for his views and his temerity to suggest that Israel is a moral, embattled democracy fighting genocidal forces committed to its destruction.

The two Jewish academics are supporters of the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions movement.

The principal aim of the BDS movement is to make it socially unacceptable to support Israel. In 2010 LeVine and Hochberg signed a petition calling for California state universities to divest from companies that do business with Israel.

Online Hollywood commentators, such as Deadline's Nellie Andreeva, opined that Voight, who was nominated for an Emmy Award for his role in Showtime's Ray Donovan series, was liable to lose his Emmy bid due to his support for Israel.

Hochberg and LeVine's assault on Voight was a long-winded voyage into the post-Zionist and anti-Zionist literary moonscape. Their principal criticism of Voight was that he refuses to accept this intellectual wasteland's rejection of the known facts of history.

Voight is not an academic, nor has he ever claimed to be an expert on Middle Eastern history. He is a non-Jewish American concerned about the future of America.That is why he stands with Israel. Voight recognizes that when Israel is under assault, and its right to defend itself is denied while terrorists are supported, the US is endangered. And so he feels compelled to speak out, regardless of the price.

In his response to the threats to deny him the Emmy due to his support for Israel Voight told USA Today, "I'm not speaking to get awards. I'm speaking because I'm concerned about my grandchildren and the life they're going to live, and the country they're coming in to. I want to protect them."

Another non-Jewish champion of Israel is former US senator and Republican presidential hopeful Rick Santorum. Both during his tenure in the Senate and since, Santorum has spoken out strongly against Iran's nuclear program, insisting that it is a serious threat not only to Israel, but to the US itself.

Like Voight, Santorum recognizes that the fate of the US is directly tied to the fate of Israel.

For his trenchant support for Israel, and his outspoken concern about Iran's nuclear program, as well as his support for domestic issues where he has not shied away from taking controversial, inconvenient position, Santorum's critics have demonized him.

But undaunted, he continues to speak out.

Last week, Santorum led a solidarity mission to Israel. The majority of his colleagues were non-Jewish opinion shapers from Iowa, the first state to hold Republican presidential contests. Santorum explained that his goal in coming to Israel was not simply to show Israelis that the American people support us. It was to build support among Republicans in Iowa for a robust US engagement in foreign affairs based on supporting Israel, fighting America's enemies and preventing the forces of hatred, like Hamas and Iran, from expanding their power.

Santorum's chief concern is that weary of foreign policy failures, more and more Republicans are embracing the isolationism most identified with Senator Rand Paul. Paul is currently polling well in Iowa.

Over the weekend Paul referred to Hillary Clinton as "a war hawk," and said, "I think the American public is coming more and more to where I am."

Santorum is convinced that if Iowans are educated about the nature of the threats emanating from the region, and of Israel's singular contribution to the cause of freedom and stability, their position can become the basis for a Republican foreign policy that rejects isolationism and embraces US leadership in world affairs as the only way to secure the US and strengthen its embattled allies.

In other words, like Voight, Santorum's support for Israel is rooted in his concern about America, and its future. Like Voight, Santorum recognizes that the growing penchant among elite opinion shapers to ignore truth in the pursuit of moral relativism and fake sophistication or isolationism constitutes a danger to America.

This week the New York Times descended to yet another low, reporting as fact totally unsubstantiated accusations by the son of a senior Hamas terrorist that Israel tortured him and used him as a human shield during a brief incarceration.

But it appears that the jig may be winding down.

More and more people are following the lead of men like Voight and Santorum, and insisting that the truth be told.

This week more than 190 Hollywood luminaries followed Voight's courageous lead and signed a public statement condemning Hamas.

Quin Hillyer, a reporter for National Review who accompanied Santorum on his mission, wrote Monday, "My visit to Israel last week confirmed that Iran and its fellow jihadists have good reason to see Israel and the United States in the same light. Israelis and Americans share the same humane, Western values...

"Israel is an oasis in a desert — in the physical, topographical sense but also metaphorically. It's an oasis of reason, human decency and justice appropriately grounded in mercy."

MacShane is right. It is vital for more non-Jews, who refuse to deny the truth that screams out to be told, to stand up to the lies and publicly stand with Israel. It is the job of Israel and Jewish communities throughout the world to empower them by among other things, reducing the power of Israel's enemies to make them pay a price for their decency.

2a)  Gaza War's Clear Loser: Netanyahu

By Daniel Gordis

Back in 2009, Israel was festooned with election campaign banners that read, “A Strong Leader for a Strong Nation.” They were Benjamin Netanyahu’s banners, which, even if he had them in stock today, he would not dare use.

We have reached the Morning After, and this is an unhappy, dissatisfied, wounded and worried country. Israel is not feeling strong. And Israelis know that in this neighborhood, if you are not strong or do not appear strong, you simply cannot survive. Makor Rishon, a center-right daily, ran a front page article this morning quoting Iranian officials as saying that these are Israel’s final years.

The political right smells blood. Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman, who coupled his Yisrael Beitinu (“Israel is our Home”) party to Netanyahu’s Likkud for the January 2013 elections but has since insisted he would not do so again, has demanded that the Israeli Defense Forces retake the Gaza strip. Few Israelis wanted to do that -- the losses would have been extremely high (some estimates projected 500 to 1000 soldiers killed), and it wasn’t clear how Israel would eventually extricate itself or bear the international condemnation. Still, in the Morning After, some Israelis who thought that Lieberman was behaving like a thug who are now muttering: “Maybe he was right.”

No new polls have been taken since the cease-fire went into effect last night (there have already been 11 cease-fires broken or rejected in this conflict, it should be noted, so there are no guarantees that the war is really over), but it would be shocking if Lieberman’s popularity has not risen.

The other likely winner on the right is Economy Minister Naftali Bennett, whose Habayit Hayehudi (“The Jewish Home”) party was a surprisingly strong player in recent elections. There has always been bad blood between Netanyahu and Bennett (some attribute it to Netanyahu’s wife detesting Bennett), and Bennett, like Lieberman, had also urged the use of much greater force. Bibi not only ignored him, but publicly smacked him down for creating a wartime rift in the cabinet. It’s virtually inconceivable that Bennett will not try a little jujitsu after that humiliation; he, too, is almost guaranteed to climb in the polls.

With Hamas celebrating in the streets, and Israelis who live near Gaza still insisting they’re too afraid of rockets and tunnels to go home, the potential for Bennett and Lieberman to challenge Bibi has never looked better. Ironically, Hamas may have just ushered in a much more hard-line Israeli government.

But the political left is equally unhappy. Israel bombed Gaza into smithereens for seven weeks, killed thousands of people -- many of them terrorists, but many of them civilians, women and children (as was inevitable, given that Hamas stationed itself in neighborhoods, mosques and hospitals). To do all of that without having achieved victory, the left insists, is a moral and political catastrophe. Haaretz, Israel’s left-leaning paper of record, led this morning with an opinion piece noting that after Operation Cast Lead in 2008-2009, Netanyahu castigated then-Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, saying that Hamas should have been toppled and security restored to Israel. Bibi insisted that only he could do it, which was when that “A Strong Leader for a Strong Nation” manta re-appeared. “Reality is a bit more complicated, isn’t it?” Haaretz derisively castigated him this morning.

In the center, YNet wrote that this may have been a tie, while David Horovitz warned in this morning’s Times of Israel that “if, under a long-term deal, Hamas is able to replicate Hezbollah’s strategy in Lebanon -- to retain full or significant control of Gaza, to re-arm, to build a still more potent killing mechanism -- then its claims of victory, appallingly, will be justified.”

No one here is happy, and no one feels secure. True, it remains to be seen whether the cease-fire holds, and yes, Israel could still carve out a slightly better deal in the negotiations with Hamas that will begin in a month.

When Israelis feel this way, they usually “take out the trash.” Golda Meir was forced to resign after the 1973 Yom Kippur War debacle, even though Israel ultimately emerged triumphant. Menachem Begin resigned after the Sabra and Shatilla Massacre, for which he wasn’t personally responsible, in part because Israel was mired in the costly Lebanon War he had unleashed. After the 2009 Operation Cast Lead in Gaza, which was shorter and much less costly than Operation Protective Edge, Olmert was forced out of office and Netanyahu picked up the spoils.

It’s Morning After in Israel, and a country that is usually politically divided is suddenly in agreement: “This did not go well, at all.” This morning, with the guns silenced, Bibi Netanyahu’s problem is no longer Hamas. Today, he is worried about the Israelis.

To contact the writer of this article: Daniel Gordis at danielgordis@outlook.com 

To contact the editor responsible for this article: Tobin Harshaw at tharshaw@bloomberg.net.

Daniel Gordis is senior vice president and Koret distinguished fellow at Shalem College in Jerusalem. He is the author of "Menachem Begin: The Battle for Israel’s Soul" and "The Promise of Israel." 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3)  Mitt Romney to Hugh Hewitt: 'Circumstances can Change'

By Elliot Jager

The Republican Party's 2012 presidential candidate, former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, who has repeatedly ruled out another White House run, has added in a radio interview the proviso, "circumstances can change." 

Interviewed on The Hugh Hewitt Show, Romney said, "Circumstances can change, but I'm just not going to let my head go there." He added, "I had the chance of running. I didn't win. Someone else has a better chance than I do. And that's what we believe, and that's why I'm not running."

Romney said, according to a transcript of the interview on Hewitt's website, "Had I believed I would actually be best positioned to beat Hillary Clinton, then I would be running."

He also raised a hypothetical: "Let's say all the guys that were running all came together and said, 'Hey, we've decided we can't do it, you must do it.' That's the one of a million we're thinking about." 

Wisconsin Rep. Paul Ryan, his vice presidential running mate, seemed to encourage another 2016 Romney run. "I sure wish he would," he said on the CBS Sunday program "Face the Nation." "I think he'd make a phenomenal president. He has the intellect, the honor, the character, and the temperament to be a fantastic president. … But he keeps saying that he's not going to run." 

Assuming he did not run for president and the party's nominee asked him to become their vice presidential candidate, Hewitt asked, "would you do it?" Romney replied, "I would always be happy to serve my country in any way that I was called upon to do. But that's not a job I would seek. I was seeking the presidency, not the vice presidency," according to the interview transcript. 

He also spoke highly of Ryan, describing him as both "brilliant" and "down to earth." Romney said that Ryan "is one of the rare people who knows how to work across the aisle. He's also one of the rare people who works on our side of the aisle effectively." 

Among the other Republicans he mentioned as "people who I think have the potential to really ignite interest in our party and potentially win the general" were Govs. Scott Walker of Wisconsin, Bobby Jindal of Louisiana, Chris Christie of New Jersey, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, as well as Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------