Though I have a high regard for Isi's perspicacity/clairvoyance, I did beat him to the punch regarding his concern for Anglo Saxon- Jewry. but them I am older.
I always believed acceptance is what we all strive for but we also must be careful, should we be fortunate enough to achieve it, we do not succumb to its downside. More of our personal charity giving goes to non-Jewish Charities, more of our friendships are non-Jewish and this is all good and I mean this with all sincerity but acceptance, such as I have it, never caused me, nor will it, to denounce Israel, to lose sight of what my people's 6,000 year's of survival means because we also must be doing something right and I am not ritualistically Jewish or religious for that matter. I try to do more right than wrong and care about my fellow man but I also am conservative and firmly believe in personal responsibility and why one must pay a price for their own behaviour. There are no free lunches and one cannot hide behind religion seeking a free pass.
I also remain a Zionist and I blame my father for this "affliction" but it has served me well and I will never change. That said, my allegiance is to America and I always reserve the right to be objective and reasoned when it comes to Israel. Again, this is why I opposed Obama's attitude and his behaviour but I understood him, I believe, because of his family history and associations. I never bought the song of "The Political Music Man." who became our president. I would have much preferred and vited for MLK and/or the likes of Thomas Sowell , who were even darker than Obama so call me a racist. (See 1 below.)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
More pros and cons re Helsinki and Trump's "Hellsink." (see 2,2a,2b,2c,2d,and 2e below.)
++++++++++++++++
Dick
______________________________________
1)Over 10 years ago, I warned that the passivity of the Anglo-Jewish leadership would likely lead to disastrous political consequences and negatively impact the younger generation, which was being inadequately educated to face its challenges.
I described Anglo-Jewish leaders as “trembling Israelites, whose uppermost objective was to lie low, and above all, avoid rocking the boat.” The policy for confronting anti-Israel or anti-Semitic adversaries was summed up by then-President of the Board of Deputies of British Jews Henry Grunwald as the “softly softly” approach, generally opposing demonstrations and urging “not to shout when a whisper can be heard.” It was a classic case of shtadlanut – avoiding any public display and attempting to resolve problems by silent intercessions.
Despite dissent from Jews at a grass-roots level, the prevailing tendency of the leadership was also to ignore the fierce waves of anti-Semitism and hostility rising from both Muslim immigrants and the Left.
At the time, Ken Livingstone, a 21st-century Oswald Mosley, was the mayor of London, ranting his anti-Israel and anti-Semitic utterances. The Jewish leadership sought to ignore him.
When the Muslim leadership called for the abolition of Holocaust Memorial Day, the cowardly Board of Deputies leaders responded with an apologetic press campaign claiming that Holocaust Memorial Day was no longer restricted to Jews but also “covers Cambodia, Rwanda, the Balkans and elsewhere.”
To enhance their social acceptability and approval ratings in the anti-Israel media, some Jewish leaders also publicly condemned Israel.
The most noteworthy of these was tycoon Mick Davis, then chairman of Anglo Jewry’s United Jewish Israel Appeal. In his comments, at the time unprecedented for a mainstream Jewish leader, Davis proclaimed that Israel was in danger of becoming an “apartheid” state and warned the Israeli government that its “bad” actions directly impinged on him in London. The Jewish leadership failed to condemn Davis for his remarks or request him to withdraw them.
In 2006, Melanie Phillips wrote “Londonistan,” a book predicting the growth of Islam in the U.K. and the consequent dangers facing society. She was immediately assailed by the Jewish leadership, which publicly condemned her as a mad extremist. Yet less than a decade later, the reality proved to be even worse than her nightmarish prophecies had predicted.
The community was stunned when the Labour Party elected as its leader Jeremy Corbyn, who would qualify as a modern Trotskyist. He was a staunch supporter of the anti-Israel boycott, divestment and sanctions movement and made no secret of his hatred of Zionism. On various occasions, he associated with a variety of anti-Semites and even Holocaust deniers. He also supported terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah, which he maintained were committed to peace.
British Jews, the majority of whom were long-time Labour supporters, were shocked. More so after many Labour MPs uttered anti-Semitic remarks leading to a pseudo-investigation by the party, following which a few of the most extreme were suspended but the majority considered kosher on the tenuous basis that their comments were anti-Zionist rather than anti-Semitic. More recently, the party diluted the internationally accepted definition of anti-Semitism by removing references such as accusing Jews of being more loyal to Israel than their own country; claiming that Israel’s existence is a racist endeavor; applying a double standard to Israel; and comparing contemporary Israeli policy to that of the Nazis.
As a consequence, Jews have defected from Labour in droves and at the last election the clear majority voted for the Conservative Party whose leaders, especially David Cameron, were all highly supportive of the Jewish community.
In 2015, Jonathan Arkush was elected president of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. After a series of cowardly leaders, who refused to speak out or protest against those promoting anti-Semitism, Arkush proved to be a courageous leader and boldly confronted anti-Semites, especially Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn. Since his assuming the position, the Board of Deputies has emerged as true representatives of the community. This hopefully, will be maintained by his recently elected successor Marie van der Zyl.
But the current situation is seriously worrying. Anglo Jewry faces grave threats. If an election were held today, there is every possibility that the next prime minister would be an outright anti-Semite.
However, aside from that, an additional serious peril facing the community is the atmosphere from within. I refer to fringe groups like Yachad that publicly criticize Israel. Over 500 Jews signed a petition condemning the Board of Deputies for chastising Hamas and failing to deplore the Israeli killings of those attempting to penetrate Israel’s borders and engage in terrorist attacks.
But the most worrisome development is the status of the younger generation, whose members have been influenced by leaders over the years to accept their fate and remain silent.
Anti-Semitism at the universities has risen to record levels and many, if not most, Jewish students simply lie low and try to avoid confrontations with anti-Israel Muslims and radicals. Moreover, even many committed Jews seeking social acceptability feel the need to be publicly critical of Israel.
Last month, there was an extreme display of this when a group of over 50 youngsters protested Israeli policy outside Parliament and then, emulating their American counterparts, named the individual Hamas terrorists killed trying to breach Israel’s border and recited kaddish for them. They also chided the Jewish community for not condemning “the Israeli occupation and the disproportionate force of the Israeli regime,” and expressed anger at Jewish leaders “for refusing to speak about the Nakba and refusing to listen to Palestinian initiatives [sic].”
Their behavior, which received national and even global exposure, shocked and embarrassed most Jews but what occurred subsequently was even worse. Most of the youngsters involved were members of the Reform youth group Netzer, which purports to be Zionist. One of them, Nina Morris-Evans, had been appointed as a leader of a youth tour of Israel but she was informed that her actions made her ineligible for this position.
This led to a petition addressed to the Jewish leadership from over 100 signatories describing themselves as “past and present leaders from a range of Zionist youth movements.” They conveyed outrage at being “abused, harassed and bullied online – particularly in a violent, misogynistic manner extending even to death threats.” They pledged not to bow to intimidation and, as “Zionists”, would insist on supporting a plurality of narratives, including those critical of Israel.
What was significant about this petition was that all the participants were either former or current Zionist activists, including a small number from Habonim, the Labor Zionist youth movement, who were apparently unaware that their own party in Israel would have condemned them.
But the majority were from Netzer, who obviously had the imprimatur of their rabbis, which accounted for the large number who signed such a hostile anti-Israel petition.
For the record, Reform Rabbi Laura Janner-Klausner and Geoffrey Marks, the chairman of Reform Jewry, described the abuse of Morris-Evans as “misogynistic and violent,” condemning the critics as “bullies,” stressing that Reform Judaism would encourage young people to express their views publicly.
The reality is that today, most Reform rabbis are non-Zionist and though paying lip service to love of Israel, they are in many cases outrightly critical and even anti-Israel.
These elements are supported by Sir Mick Davis, now chief executive of the Conservative Party, who condemned those “seeking to hound kaddish participants from their jobs.” He added that there was an absence of Zionist leadership for which one turns “to Israel but finds little to inspire.”
The response from the leadership was muted and there is yet to be heard a reprimand by the Zionist Federation pointing out that such behavior is incompatible with purporting to be a Zionist.
The Jewish Chronicle editorial adopted a neutral position, conceding that most Jews would consider the kaddish for Hamas warped, but claimed that the open letter reflected “a potentially seismic change in the community” and called for “goodwill on all sides.”
Anglo Jewry is confronting painful challenges. The fact that “Zionist” youth can publicly express such hostility toward Israel reflects a breakdown in education.
While most British Jews remain committed to Israel, in most cases, the leadership fails to publicly confront and dissociate itself from anti-Israel Jews. It legitimizes them when applying the policy that the community must tolerate the presence of extremists within the “big tent.” There will be disastrous long-term consequences if demented fanatics like the Jewish deviants reciting kaddish for Hamas or those who, in the name of pluralism, demand tolerance of such views, are enabled to remain within the Jewish or Zionist mainstream.
In this climate of overt anti-Semitism in the Labour Party coupled with the inadequate education of its Zionist youth, the Jewish leadership faces its greatest challenge. If it fails, all that will ultimately remain of Anglo Jewry will be clusters of haredi communities.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When Presidents Trump and Vladimir Putin ended their joint press conference in Helsinki, the punditocracy predictably swarmed all over it like ants around a pile of crumbs. Was Trump winking at Putin? Did he really say he believes Putin more than he believes Robert Mueller about whether Russia interfered in the 2016 election? Former Gus Hall enthusiast John Brennan, off his meds again, tweeted that the presser was “treasonous.” Professional chatterer Anderson Cooper said it was “perhaps one of the most disgraceful performances by an American president at a summit.”
Every phrase, every gesture of the event will be picked apart and second-guessed to death in the next few days. I’ll leave them to the carrion.
Would You Rather Fight?
To my mind, the chief point was enunciated by Winston Churchill in 1954: “Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war.”
To my mind, the chief point was enunciated by Winston Churchill in 1954: “Meeting jaw to jaw is better than war.”
As President Trump repeatedly put it during his 2016 campaign, it would be a good thing, not a bad thing, to get along better with Russia. Let me stipulate that I think that Vladimir Putin is a murderous thug. He has demonstrated time and again that while you can take the lout out of the KGB, it’s much more difficult to take the KGB out of the lout.
That said, Russia is a world power that commands an enormous nuclear arsenal. Which means we cannot—or at least we should not—simply take our marbles out of the game and go home in a snit because they do things of which we do not approve.
As Trump and Putin both frankly acknowledged, there are issues on which they diverge—the fate of Crimea may lead the list—but there are also many areas in which our national interests intersect. It is a mark of the realistic and far-seeing diplomat to seize and build upon the latter while trying to find common ground about the former. This is what both men are trying to do.
Big If’s
I think there are essentially two takeaways from this historic event in Helsinki. The first is that Donald Trump is a bold, risk-taking statesman whose demotic style of delivery prevents many from appreciating the beneficently radical nature of his diplomacy. Maybe he will wind up being played by Kim Jong-un. But maybe his astonishing meeting with the tubby tyrant in Singapore is the beginning of the normalization of North Korea. If that happens—and I acknowledge that history suggests it is a big “if”—then President Trump will have achieved a world-historical diplomatic victory. His willingness to meet “jaw to jaw” would then be seen as a gambit of genius.
Maybe Putin is running circles around a gullible Trump. But maybe it is a real, as distinct from an Obama-Clinton merely rhetorical, reset. Then that, too, will be seen as a masterly and peace-enhancing initiative.
The high professional quality of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin’s performance at their Monday press conference in Helsinki contrasts sharply with the obloquy by which the bipartisan U.S. ruling class showcases its willful incompetence.
Though I voted for Trump, I’ve never been a fan of his and I am not one now. But, having taught diplomacy for many years, I would choose the Trump-Putin press conference as an exemplar of how these things should be done. Both spoke with the frankness and specificity of serious business. This performance rates an A+.
Both presidents started with the basic truth.
Putin: The Cold War is ancient history. Nobody in Russia (putting himself in this category) wants that kind of enmity again. It is best for Russia, for America, and for everybody else if the two find areas of agreement or forbearance.
Trump: Relations between the globe’s major nuclear powers have never been this bad—especially since some Americans are exacerbating existing international differences for domestic partisan gain. For the sake of peace and adjustment of differences where those exist and adjustment is possible, Trump is willing to pay a political cost to improve those relations (if, indeed further enraging his enemies is a cost rather than a benefit).
In short, this was a classic statement of diplomatic positions and a drawing of spheres of influence.
Flexibility and Inflexibility
As Putin listed his agenda, he showed that today’s Russia is a status quo power, whose primary objective is stability. Having come to power over a country diminished and dispirited, he sought to recover as much as possible of what Russia had lost in the Soviet break-up. He forcibly took back parts of Georgia and Ukraine. In doing so, he pushed against open doors.
Today, no other doors are open. Now being ahead, he wants to stop the game. He knows that this is possible because nobody is going to wage or even risk war against Russia to try disgorging Abkhazia and Crimea. He wants Trump to acknowledge that. Warning against extending NATO to Ukraine and Georgia, he signaled that all else is negotiable.
President Trump’s meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin and joint press conference have left many of his supporters scratching their heads. His opponents have been desperate for something to pounce on because they can’t get the collusion narrative to bear the fruit they need to neuter him, so they now alternate between condemnation and ridicule.
But observers who have applauded Trump’s tough words and actions regarding both U.S. allies and foes are having a hard time understanding why he did not choose to treat Putin as he has all others: with both carrots and sticks. Why all carrots for Putin in public?
Trump has been able to use words and deeds to get the kind of action he wants out of whomever he is negotiating with. So far it has been working fairly well, and certainly better than his predecessor’s approach. But today the president created a problem for himself that only strong action can mitigate. In short, he let Putin save too much face and that may well delay improvement in U.S.-Russia relations.
What Putin Wants from the United States
What Putin Wants from the United States
Putin is not interested only in the removal of sanctions and an end to U.S. strikes against his allies. He certainly wants that. But above all Putin wants to stay in power. It is a matter of survival for him. Unlike Western leaders, who win and hold power by elections, Putin holds and wields power by appearing strong and in charge. He needs to appear strong to the Russian people, and to his gang of elites, who regularly have to consider if Putin in power is good for their interests.
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin held their first summit meeting Monday in Helsinki, Finland. The meeting took place just days after Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein had announced indictments against 12 Russian military intelligence officers for allegedly hacking the computer systems of the Democratic National Committee and of Hillary Clinton’s election campaign during the 2016 election campaign. Some Democrats and media pundits wanted President Trump to cancel the meeting in the wake of the indictments, or at least to place the election meddling issue front and center of their discussions before any other issue. Reporters’ questions at the joint press conference following the meeting focused primarily on the election meddling issue. Critical security threats to the world, such as Iran and Syria, Islamic terrorism, and nuclear proliferation, are evidently of much lesser concern to President Trump’s critic's.
In his opening remarks before the one-on-one meeting, President Trump noted the deteriorating state of U.S.-Russian relations and emphasized the importance of dialogue between the two countries’ leaders. “I think we have great opportunities together as two countries that frankly we have not been getting along well for the last number of years,” President Trump said. “I really think the world wants to see us get along.” The Russian president said that “the time has come to have a thorough discussion on various international problems and sensitive issues. There are quite a few of them for us to pay attention to.” Both pres
The private meeting between the two leaders lasted more than two hours, longer than originally scheduled, followed by a luncheon session that included top aides on both sides. Then President Trump and President Putin conducted a joint press conference.
2d) TRUMP/PUTIN/ISRAEL/SYRIA/IRAN
President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to work together on solving the Syrian crisis—with both focusing on the need to guarantee Israel’s security.
In recent weeks, Russian-backed forces of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime made major advances toward Israel and Jordan in the southwest of the country, routing the remaining pockets of the Sunni Arab opposition the U.S. once supported.
At the same time, Israel ramped up airstrikes against Iranian military targets and pro-Iranian militias across Syria, part of its drive to prevent the establishment of a permanent Iranian military presence there.
For Israel, the key demand is that Syrian regime forces stay away from the demilitarized buffer zone along the 1974 cease-fire line between Syria and the Israeli-held Golan Heights—an area the United Nations supervised before the Syrian war erupted in 2011.
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said after talks with Mr. Putin in Moscow last week that Israel had no problem with Mr. Assad as long as his forces didn’t attempt to penetrate that demilitarized zone.
Mr. Putin on Monday endorsed that request.
“After the definitive defeat of the terrorists in the southwest of Syria, the situation on the Golan Heights must be brought into full compliance with the 1974 disengagement agreement,” Mr. Putin said. “This would return calm to the Golan, restore the cease-fire, and safely guarantee the security of the State of Israel.”
Mr. Putin remained silent about Israeli strikes against Iranian targets in Syria—attacks that Russia’s formidable air-defense systems haven’t attempted to prevent.
Mr. Trump said he and Mr. Putin shared a commitment to Israel’s security, adding, “I made clear we will not allow Iran to benefit from our successful campaign against ISIS,” referring to Islamic State. Mr. Netanyahu thanked both presidents after the Helsinki meeting.
A key issue left unaddressed for now, at least in public, was the future of U.S. troops in Syria. These forces are mostly deployed in the Kurdish-controlled areas of eastern Syria that have been liberated from Islamic State—and that contain a large share of Syria’s oil and gas resources. U.S. airstrikes repulsed an attempt by regime troops and Russian mercenaries to advance into those areas in February—an event that resulted in massive casualties among the mercenaries, embarrassing Mr. Putin.
As sure as sunshine in Southern California, the media was just waiting for President Trump to meet with Russia’s Putin to begin shouting, “Traitor.”
Here’s the voice of the Amazon resistance, the Washington Post, taking up the clamor.
Greg Sargent / Washington Post: – Trump is now repaying Putin for helping him win the presidency
And here’s the New York Times.
Charles M. Blow / New York Times:- Trump, Treasonous Traitor
Journalism.
Oddly enough the media had no problem with Obama running on a reset with Russia. The reset blamed the bad relationship on Bush and the Iraq War. That wasn’t treason.
And here’s what happened when Obama met with Putin.
“I’m aware of not only the extraordinary work that you’ve done on behalf of the Russian people … as president, but in your current role as prime minister,” Obama said during a breakfast meeting at Putin’s country home on the outskirts of Moscow. “We think there’s an excellent opportunity to put U.S.-Russian relations on a much stronger footing.”
Where were the same media trolls shrieking now about praising dictators? Or a failure to defend America?
Obama met with Medvedev at the Kremlin, while Putin received him at Novo-Ogaryovo, where a sumptuous breakfast with caviar was laid out. Trying to make conversation, Obama began by asking rhetorically, “How did we get into this mess [in U.S.-Russian relations]?” In response, Putin gave him an hourlong lecture as to how precisely it had happened. Obama listened without interrupting.
What did Putin get from Obama?
1. A free hand in Georgia
2. A free hand in Syria
3. The betrayal of Poland vis a vis the missile shield
4. The betrayal of Ukraine by refusing to provide its governor with useful weapons
5. A whole bunch of our uranium via Uranium One
6. A deal allowing Russia’s Iranian allies to go nuclear
7. Failure to do anything about the same Russian actions that the media is now blaming Trump for. Instead his administration actually issued a stand down order.
What has Trump given to Putin? Nothing. He’s come to the defense of Poland and Ukraine when Obama wouldn’t.
If this is the media’s metric for treason, then Obama is a traitor. He not only praised Putin, he promised to make a sweetheart deal with Russia after the election was over.
That’s number 8.
President Obama was running for re-election in March 2012, when a live microphone picked up his whispered conversation with then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev.
Obama told Medvedev it was important for incoming President Vladimir Putin to “give me space” on missile defense and other difficult issues and that after the 2012 presidential election he would have “more flexibility.” Medvedev said he would “transmit” the message to Putin.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
No comments:
Post a Comment