The world we live in is full of hypocrisy.
++++++
Retired Chief Master Sergeant, George Roof, in
colorful, descriptive language, pretty much expresses
his frustrations and my own thoughts. He is one of
those "husting" folk I mentioned in my previous
memo.
It is his kind who are our nation's best and only hope.
He's walked the talk, is clear eyed and is as red
blooded as they get.
Senator Dianne Feinstein, said with respect to Nominee Judge Neil Gorsuch, she was looking to determine if he is a centrist conservative. I seriously doubt the last two Justices appointed to The Supreme Court were centrist liberals but then Democrats are known to bathe in hypocrisy.
That Gorsuch is imminently qualified is not being challenged. Democrats remain ticked Obama's Judge Garland was not vetted and they are taking their angst against Gorsuch but he will be approved, probably within the next three weeks.
We elect grown ups who then act like children. Sad! (See 1 and 1a below.)
On another note, if you believe the efforts of Democrats at today's Comey Hearing, connecting the Trump Administration to Putin then, you also believe our entire government has become a slave to Putin's bidding.
I have no doubt some sleazy characters close to Trump, and who were initially part of his campaign, have done business with Russian entities and received payment for their services. Some of their billings may be illegal and some of their actions may have required they should have registered and/or voluntarily revealed these connections. That the anti-Trumpers are suggesting Trump would sell America out for Russian payoffs is a stretch but then Democrats have long reaches and will stop at nothing.
We do know Hillary, when Sec. of State, sold a Russian entity vast American uranium resources and laundered payoffs through Canada into the Clinton Foundation. We do know Obama told Russia's Medvedev he would be easier to deal with after being elected a second time and we know Obama and Kerry stood by while Russia gained a foot hold in The Middle East beyond Putin's wildest dreams.
I do not believe Obama sold America down the river for money but I do believe he harmed our nation because of his feckless policies.
Finally:
What will it take to drive Liberal Jews away from The Democrat Party?
Not even antipathy towards Israel, as a result of the appointment of Keith Ellison, seems to bother them. (See 1b below.)
+++
More dead pan humor. (See 2 below.)
++++++++++
Israel called upon to help Arab nations defend against Iran. (See 3 below.)
+++++++++++++++++++
++++
Dick
+++++++++++++++++++
1) Presidents I've known: by George Roof
Chief Master Sergeant (Retired), US Air Force
"Because I am a “lifer” in the military, I’ve seen the impact of presidents more than many of you can imagine. I enlisted with LBJ and saw just what a Democrat cluster flock was all about. I went to Vietnam and saw how we were constantly and incessantly bombarded with micromanagement from Washington that got thousands of military people killed. I sometimes wonder if I’ll get to heaven, but if I go to hell, I’m sure I’ll still be a few hundred floors above the bastards, Robert McNamara, LBJ, John Kerry, Jane Fonda and yes, even the “hero” John McCain.
After Johnson “abdicated” rather than having his ass waxed, I lived through Nixon who was hawkish but allowed the generals (and there WERE a few real generals back then versus now) to run the show. He was so out of touch that he never knew North Vietnam was about to surrender when the Paris Accord was presented.
Only God could help us after Gerald Ford was beaten by Jimmy Peanuts who’d been funded by Saudi money. The military was turned into Section 8 and even the White House suffered the austerity.
Then the light began to shine and Ronald Reagan swept into the fray. He not only loved the country and the military, they loved him back. Esprit d’corps was off the scale during his presidency. The Liberals were slowly turning into socialists, however, and about this time all the draft dodgers of the 1960’s who’d been given amnesty by Jimmy Peanuts were turning out college graduates with degrees in socialism.
Bush #1 was an enigma from the CIA and though he NEVER DID MUCH EITHER WAY.
Welcome to Bill Clinton. Clinton spent most of his two terms wagging the dog and creating the Oral Office, sending bombers to blow up Quaddafi’s tent and killing a goat or two, while allowing the UN to set up the infamous Black Hawk Down situation. He made history by becoming only the second president to be impeached.
I actually felt sorry for Bush #2. He was doomed to infamy from the start. He thought most of America was still the rah rah patriots of WWII when they were simply socialists waiting to feed him to the sharks.
Then there came the Manchurian Candidate with a faked (OK Democrats, let’s say “of questionable origin” to assuage your PC brains) birth certificate, who’d gotten a free ride through college under a foreign student exemption, and whose college records and complete life history had been sealed. (We know more about Thomas Jefferson’s bastard children than we do about Obama, Michelle, OR their two kids.) From his inaugural address, he slandered America and within days had begun to encourage distention of the races as well as slandering police who “acted stupidly.” That was mild to the crap that would come in doubling the national debt from what had been built by ALL THE PREVIOUS PRESIDENTS COMBINED, feeding us bull spit about how Muslims built this country, and nationalizing American industries. Fueled by George Soros’ money and using the Air Force fleet as his personal charters, he appointed malcontents and traitors into positions of authority. He trashed the Constitution by installing “czars” (interesting he chose a title like that) to bypass Congressional authority. By that time, Congress was completely corrupt on both sides of the aisle. No one had balls to impeach this charlatan.
Mysteriously, the lone outspoken conservative Supreme Court Justice suddenly dies in his sleep at an Obama pal’s hunting lodge and the Supreme Court is evenly split. Finally, Congress shows some balls and rejects Obama’s nomination. The Libtards aren’t worried because the fix is in. Soros has paid demonstrators to cause turmoil at all the Republican gatherings, Obama concedes that illegal aliens should vote as they won’t be prosecuted, and Soros-manufactured voting machines are caught switching votes in certain precincts. Hillary has cheated her way to the nomination and her lies are completely ignored by the brainwashed minions of sycophants who follow her.
But a shocking thing happened on the way to the forum. Middle America had had enough and although the pollsters and the pipers tried to convince them not even to bother to vote, they were fed up with the denizens of the swamp. It was time. Florida was designated a “swing” state ignoring that all those old retirees living in Pensacola, St. Petersburg and the fed up Cuban Americans of Miami weren’t interested in their platform. Ohio and Pennsylvania, where coal production was blacklisted and where Obama had ridiculed them for “clinging to their Bibles and their guns,” lay awaiting this supposed “landslide” Hillary vote and creamed it.
The Socialist world of the Democratic Party disintegrated. An American who expressed unbridled love of country and respect for police, firemen, and military steamrolled across the heartland and the liberals realized their scheme was trashed. A CONSTITUTIONALIST would be nominated to the Supreme Court and if the old hag who’d claimed to retire if Trump were elected would actually do so, the Supreme Court would have a massive majority of CONSTITUTIONALISTS for the next 30-40 years.
Now, the same party who’d ridiculed Trump on his comments about the election being rigged, started screaming that the election was rigged. They even advocated having the election repeated. They created mobs that burned and pillaged, stopped traffic, threatened murder, batter and rape of Trump supporters, and became the anarchists that the socialist dream thrives upon. They run like castrated pigs for safe zones and use diaper pins as their national symbol. This is exactly what happens when political correctness takes over and participation trophies are awarded to everyone. They can’t conceive how disgusting and subservient they have become.
1a) The Gorsuch Resistance
Democrats haven’t come up with a single good reason to oppose him.
The Senate begins confirmation hearings for Neil Gorsuch Monday, and the image to keep in mind is professional wrestling. Democrats have dug up so little on the supremely qualified Supreme Court nominee that they’ll be huffing and puffing and pretending to body slam the judge around the hearing room. It’s mostly political theater.
Progressives frustrated at the judge’s stellar record are pressuring Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer to turn the hearings into the next show of political resistance to President Trump. In a recent letter to Democratic Senators, groups including abortion activists, MoveOn.org and the Service Employees International Union called Judge Gorsuch an “unacceptable nominee” and demanded the nomination meet a 60-vote threshold.
“Democrats have failed to demonstrate a strong, unified resistance to this nominee despite the fact that he is an ultra-conservative jurist who will undermine our basic freedoms and threaten the independence of the federal judiciary,” the groups wrote. By “basic freedoms” they must not mean free speech, religious liberty or gun rights that Judge Gorsuch has upheld.
Mr. Schumer has responded by posing with flexed muscles, but he makes a lousy CM Punk. Mr. Gorsuch “may act like a neutral, calm judge” and “he expresses a lot of empathy and sympathy for the less powerful,” the Democratic leader said last week, but in reality the judge “harbors a right-wing, pro-corporate, special-interest agenda.”
The claim is that Judge Gorsuch has sometimes ruled in favor of big companies. So what? Judges are supposed to look at the facts and law, not which side is bigger or richer.
Democrats cite Hwang v. Kansas State, in which Judge Gorsuch ruled that when a school declined to extend the length of a six-month leave of absence to a teacher who had cancer, the decision did not qualify her for a discrimination claim under the Rehabilitation Act. They also make much of Thompson R2-J School District v. Luke P., in which the court ruled against parents seeking reimbursement for the cost of a private program after they took their autistic son out of public school. But these were correct rulings based on statute and precedent, and they were unanimous rulings joined by liberal judges.
Mr. Schumer says that in employment-discrimination cases Mr. Gorsuch “sided with employers 60% of the time.” But judging isn’t a statistical exercise in which perfect impartiality is defined by a 50-50 divide between employers and employed. Among Judge Gorsuch’s 171 labor and employment cases, 89% were unanimous decisions.
Democrats want to ignore cases when Judge Gorsuch ruled against corporations and business interests. In 2015 in Cook v. Rockwell, the judge ruled in favor of allowing a decades-long class action over whether the Rocky Flats nuclear-weapons plant had contaminated land with leaked plutonium. In E nergy and Environment Legal Institute v. Epel, Judge Gorsuch ruled to uphold the constitutionality of Colorado’s renewable-energy mandate.
Democrats are also trying to conjure something nefarious because Judge Gorsuch is friendly with billionaire businessman Philip Anschutz. Well, they do both live in Denver, Judge Gorsuch represented Mr. Anschutz while in private practice, and Mr. Anschutz later recommended him for a federal judgeship.
Again, so what? Mr. Anschutz has also been connected to Democratic Colorado Senator Michael Bennet, who was an executive at Anschutz Investment Co. The Denver Post reported in 2010 that family members and Anschutz executives were major patrons of Mr. Bennet. We presume Democrats don’t think that relationship compromised the integrity of Mr. Bennet.
If this is all they’ve come up with, Democrats might as well start counting the votes. Judge Gorsuch has been praised by President Obama’s former Solicitor General Neal Katyal, and the judge’s record of skepticism toward executive power is exactly what Democrats might hope for in a Donald Trump appointee. He also has a libertarian streak on criminal law.
None of this will matter to most Democrats, who will bow to their base and oppose the judge. Jeff Merkley (D., Ore.) has already called for a filibuster to block the nominee even if he has more than 50 votes. Republicans would then have to follow Harry Reid’s precedent from 2013 and break the filibuster.
Republicans—Ted Cruz and Mr. Trump excepted—have behaved well in saying they would prefer not to have to take that step. But if Democrats are so afraid of the left that they oppose even a mainstream and distinguished nominee like Judge Gorsuch, the GOP will have to do so for the good of the judiciary and the country.
1b) Democrats Turn Against Israel
In 1972 ours was the first party to back moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem.
By Andrew Stein and Douglas Schoen
Rep. Keith Ellison’s selection as deputy chairman of the Democratic National Committee is the latest ratification of our party’s turn away from Israel. Mr. Ellison, who complained in 2010 that “United States foreign policy in the Middle East is governed by what is good or bad through a country of seven million people,” narrowly lost a bid for DNC chairman, then was chosen by acclamation as deputy.
The Democrats used to be the pro-Israel party. President Truman recognized the Jewish state within minutes of its independence in 1948. In 1972 the convention that nominated George McGovern ratified the first major-party platform to support moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. The Republicans didn’t follow until 1996.
A lot has changed for the Democrats in 45 years. President Obama created an atmosphere of outright hostility between the U.S. and Israel. He made a nuclear deal with Iran and refused to veto the United Nations Security Council resolution in December that condemned settlements in the disputed West Bank.
Hillary Clinton might have been an improvement, but her commitment to Israel has long been questioned. As secretary of state, she referred to Israeli settlements as “illegitimate.” In 2015 she had to reassure donors to her presidential campaign that she still supported Israel. Even during Bill Clinton’s administration, pro-Israel Democrats worried that Mrs. Clinton would influence her husband in the wrong direction.
Then there’s Sen. Bernie Sanders, who as a presidential candidate in April 2016 accused Israel of being “indiscriminate” in “attacks against civilian areas” when defending itself against rockets fired by terrorists from Gaza. Mr. Sanders received 43% of Democratic primary votes.
How did this happen? There was once an inexorable link between support for Israel and for the civil-rights movement. Both were responses to invidious discrimination—anti-Semitism and racism. Starting in the mid-1960s, however, an anti-Israel minority emerged in the form of the New Left. These groups—such as the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee, Students for a Democratic Society, and the Black Panthers—saw Israelis as oppressors and Palestinians as engaged in a “just struggle for liberation” as Panthers founder Huey P. Newton put it.
In the 1970s elements of the left became steadily more hostile to Israel. A turning point came in 1975, when the U.N. passed a resolution equating Zionism with racism. That provided an intellectual and political opening for those who wanted to drive a wedge between supporters of Israel and of civil rights.
An organization called Basic—Black Americans to Support Israel Committee—was formed to condemn the resolution. “We seek to defend democracy in the Mideast, and therefore we support Israel,” the civil-rights leader Bayard Rustin declared. Unfortunately, that was the last time the organized Jewish and black communities worked together.
In 1979 President Carter fired U.N. Ambassador Andrew Young, the first African-American to hold that position, for violating U.S. policy by meeting with a representative of the Palestine Liberation Organization. Mr. Young’s dismissal led several black leaders to break with their Jewish allies on Israel.
In 1984 Jesse Jackson, who’d publicly embraced PLO head Yasser Arafat five years earlier, ran for the Democratic presidential nomination. A Washington Post story about his difficult relationship with Jews quoted him as using the slur “Hymie” and calling New York City “Hymietown.” Mr. Jackson won 3.3 million votes in the primaries. He ran again in 1988 and more than doubled the total, to 6.9 million—another sign of the party’s slow shift.
There are still pro-Israel Democrats, but they are beleaguered and equivocal. New York Sen. Chuck Schumer, now the minority leader, described himself in 2010 as the Senate’s protector of Israel: “My name . . . comes from a Hebrew word. It comes from the word shomer, which mean guardian.” But how effectively has he played that role?
In 2015 Mr. Schumer was one of four Senate Democrats to vote against Mr. Obama’s Iran deal. But killing it would have taken 13 Democrats, and Politico reported Mr. Schumer phoned Democratic colleagues to “assure them he would not be whipping opposition to the deal.” Mr. Schumer—whose Brooklyn apartment building has been protested by leftist opponents of President Trump—was also an early backer of Mr. Ellison for the party chairmanship.
One reason Democrats have continued the move away from Israel is that Jewish voters haven’t exacted a price for it. Exit polls in 2016 found they supported Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Trump, 71% to 23%, in line with their historic levels of Democratic support.
There’s still an opportunity here for the GOP. Especially if Mr. Trump delivers on his promise to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, the Jewish vote could start trending Republican. Unless Democrats reaffirm their support for Israel, many lifelong party members—ourselves included—may decide that the time has come to find new political affiliations.
Mr. Stein, who held elective office in New York between 1969 and 1994, is now a business consultant. Mr. Schoen served as a political adviser and pollster for President Clinton, 1994-2000.
++++++++++++++++++++
2) MY PRIVATE PART DIED
An old man, Mr.. Wallace, was living in a nursing home.
One day he appeared to be very sad and depressed.
Nurse Tracy asked him if there was anything wrong.
'Yes, Nurse Tracy ,' said Mr. Wallace.
'My Private Part died today, and I am very sad.'
Knowing her patients were a little forgetful and sometimes a little crazy, she replied, 'Oh, I'm so sorry, Mr. Wallace. Please accept my condolences.'
The following day, Mr. Wallace was walking down the hall with his Private Part hanging out of his pajamas.
He met Nurse Tracy. 'Mr. Wallace,' she said, 'You shouldn't be walking down the hall like that. Please put your Private Part back inside your pajamas.'
'But, Nurse Tracy I can't,' replied Mr. Wallace. 'I told you yesterday that my Private Part died.'
'Yes,' said Nurse Tracy , 'you did tell me that, but why is it hanging out of your pajamas?'
'Well,' he replied, 'Today is the viewing.'
++++++++++++++++++++
3) Column One: Know thine enemy
3) Column One: Know thine enemy
The Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians are working with Israel on countering Iran because they need Israel to help them to weaken Iran.
By Caroline Glick
There are iron rules of warfare. One of the most basic rules is that you have to know your enemy. If you do not know your enemy, or worse, if you refuse to act on your knowledge of him, you will lose your war against him.
This basic truth appears to have eluded Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
This week we have been beset by the bizarre and sudden appearance of Jason Greenblatt, President Donald Trump’s negotiations chief.
Greenblatt’s mission is apparently to reinstate the mordant peace process between Israel and the PLO.
The peace process that Greenblatt is here to reincarnate died 17 years ago.
In 2000, PLO chief and Palestinian Authority chairman Yasser Arafat killed the peace process when he initiated a massive terrorist war against Israel, right after he rejected peace and Palestinian statehood at the Camp David peace conference.
In rejecting peace, the architect of modern terrorism made clear that his claim seven years earlier that he was willing to reach a compromise with Israel, based on partition of the Land of Israel between a Jewish and an Arab state, was a lie. As the nationalist camp had warned at the time and since, the PLO was not been remotely interested either in statehood or in peace. Arafat’s willingness to engage Israel in negotiations that led to its transfer of security and civil control over Gaza and the Palestinian population centers in Judea and Samaria was simply another means to the only end the PLO ever contemplated. It was a means of weakening Israel as a step toward achieving the PLO’s ultimate goal of destroying the Jewish state.
In 1993, when then-prime minister Yitzhak Rabin agreed to recognize the PLO, his implicit assumption was that if Arafat was lying, Israel would walk away from the peace process. It would retake control over the areas it had ceded to PLO control and things would go back to the way they were before he made the gamble, indeed they would be better. Whereas for years Israel had been under pressure from the Europeans and the Americans to recognize the PLO, if Israel recognized the terrorist group and the PLO responded by showing that it remained dedicated to Israel’s destruction, the world that had been pressuring Israel would end its pressure.
The Europeans and the Americans would rally to Israel’s side against the PLO.
In 2000, after Arafat blew up the negotiations table with his suicide bombers, then-prime minister Ehud Barak announced triumphantly that he had ripped the mask off of Arafat’s face.
Now everyone would recognize the truth about the PLO. Now the Europeans and the Americans would rally to Israel’s side.
Of course, things didn’t work out that way.
In the seven years between Rabin’s decision to gamble on Arafat, and Barak’s declaration that the truth had finally come out, the Europeans and the Americans and the Israeli Left had become addicted to the notion that the PLO was a peace movement and that Israel and its so-called settlers were the reason that peace hadn’t been reached.
That is, by the time the true nature of Israel’s enemy had become clear, it was too late. It didn’t matter. In recognizing the PLO, Israel had legitimized it. Refusing to recognize the nature of its enemy, Israel had empowered it, at its own expense.
By the time Arafat removed his mask, the legitimacy he had received from Israel seven years earlier had rendered him untouchable.
The West had become so invested in the myth of PLO moderation that rather than punish him for his terrorist war, the Europeans and the Americans punished Israel for complaining about it. Indeed, the more Israelis Arafat’s henchmen murdered, the more committed the Europeans and the American foreign policy establishment and political Left became to the PLO.
Israel, in the meantime, became a diplomatic outcast.
In the 17 years since Arafat showed his true colors, neither he nor his heir Mahmoud Abbas ever did anything to indicate that the PLO has changed its spots. To the contrary. The PLO’s leaders have made clear over and over and over again that Arafat’s decision to reject peace in favor of never-ending war against Israel was no fluke. It was the rule.
The PLO doesn’t want a state. If it did it would have accepted sovereignty in Gaza 12 years ago, when Israel withdrew and took its citizens with it. If it wanted a state, then Arafat and Abbas would have accepted Israel’s repeated offers of statehood over the years.
The PLO that is greeting Greenblatt in March 2017 is the same terrorist organization it was when Arafat announced its formation in December 1964.
Given this unchanging reality, it is deeply destructive for Israel to continue paying lip service to the fake peace process. And yet, that is precisely what Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is doing.
Trump’s election gave Israel an opportunity to finally get the Americans to recognize the reality they have spent the past 17 years refusing to accept. Unlike Barack Obama, Trump was not wedded to the notion that Israel, and its religious Zionist community, is to blame for the absence of peace. He was not obsessed with appeasing the PLO as his predecessors have been for the past generation.
Trump was not interested in getting involved with the Palestinians at all. But rather than seize the opportunity he was handed, Netanyahu seems to have decided to throw it in the trash.
He only agreed to discuss his strategic goal for dealing with the Palestinians after his cabinet forced him to do so on the eve of his trip to Washington last month.
At that meeting, Netanyahu said that he supports establishing a “Palestinian state, minus” that would have formal sovereignty but would be demilitarized. Netanyahu also offered that he envisions Israeli sovereignty being extended to the Israeli communities in Judea and Samaria.
There are many problems with Netanyahu’s plan. But its most glaring deficiency is that it continues to treat the PLO as a legitimate organization rather than a terrorist organization.
By doing so, Netanyahu not only throws a lifeline to an organization that uses all the legitimacy Israel confers on it to weaken Israel strategically and diplomatically. He empowers Israel’s detractors in the US and Europe that have spent the past quarter-century blaming Israel for the absence of peace and acclaiming the PLO and its terrorist chiefs as moderates.
It is not surprising that Trump reinstated Obama’s demand that Israel curtail Jewish property rights in Judea and Samaria after Netanyahu pronounced his support for Palestinian statehood. If Netanyahu won’t disavow the anti-Israel diplomatic unicorn, then why should Trump? And if Trump is maintaining allegiance to the myth of PLO legitimacy, then it only makes sense for him to also adopt the patently absurd, and virulently anti-Israel, assumption that Jewish home building is the reason there is no peace.
Similarly, with Netanyahu willing to accept the PLO, and the concomitant assumption of Jewish culpability for the absence of peace, why would Trump consider replacing Obama’s anti-Israel advisers with advisers supportive of the US-Israel alliance? After Netanyahu left Washington last month, Trump decided to retain Yael Lempert as the National Security Council’s point person for the Israeli-Palestinian portfolio. According to a report in The Weekly Standard, Democrats in Washington long viewed Lempert as one of the most radical opponents of Israel in the Obama administration.
Trump also decided to keep on Michael Ratney, the former US consul in Jerusalem, as the man in charge of the Israeli-Palestinian desk at the State Department. Ratney’s appointment brought shouts of joy from anti-Israel activists led by John Kerry’s former negotiations chief Martin Indyk.
Perhaps these personnel decisions would have been made even if Netanyahu hadn’t maintained his allegiance to the lie of PLO legitimacy. But Netanyahu’s support for the PLO made it much easier for these opponents of Israel to keep their jobs.
By all accounts, Jason Greenblatt is a friend of Israel and a supporter of the US alliance with the Jewish state. Greenblatt studied at a yeshiva in Gush Etzion many years ago. On Thursday, he took the step that no US envoy has ever taken of meeting with the heads of the local councils in Judea and Samaria.
And yet, whatever his personal views may be, this week he came to Israel to discuss limiting the legal rights of Israelis in Judea and Samaria.
He was accompanied on his trip by Lempert.
Greenblatt visited with Abbas in Ramallah and delivered no ultimatum when he asked the Palestinian Authority “president” (whose term of office ended in 2009) to scale back the murderous anti-Jewish propaganda that permeates all facets of Palestinian society under the PLO.
Greenblatt politely listened as Abbas demanded that Israel agree to withdraw to the 1949 armistice lines in a future peace, agree to release terrorist murderers from its prisons and end all construction for Jews in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.
Greenblatt then discussed continued US economic subsidization of Abbas’s terrorism- steeped kleptocracy, in the name of economic development.
In other words, whatever Greenblatt’s personal views on the issues, as Trump’s envoy, he put us all back on the phony peace train.
Netanyahu argues that Israel has to give legitimacy to the PLO and support Palestinian statehood, because if it doesn’t, then the Sunni Arab states won’t work with Israel in its efforts to stymie Iran’s regional power grab and stall its nuclear weapons program. This claim, however, is untrue.
The Saudis, Egyptians and Jordanians are working with Israel on countering Iran because they need Israel to help them to weaken Iran.
They need Israel to help them to convince the Americans to abandon Obama’s pro-Iranian Middle East policy.
In other words, Netanyahu is paying for Sunni support that he can get for free.
Rabin believed that Israel would emerge stronger from his decision to recognize the PLO, one way or another. Either Israel would achieve peace. Or Israel would get the Americans and the Europeans off its back once the PLO made clear that it was lying about wanting peace. Rabin was wrong.
Israel paid gravely for Rabin’s error in judgment.
It will pay a similarly high price, if not a higher one, if Netanyahu continues to repeat Rabin’s mistake of failing to know his enemy.
++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment