Thursday, April 11, 2024

Important Memo. Very Worth Perusing.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1984 is happening in 2024.  What took it so long?
Actionable propaganda lies about to begin? Already has in Dearborn, MI.
+++
Islamic Dearborn, Michigan will decide America's next president
Biden needs Michigan, desperately, and so he will do anything to satisfy Tlaib and her flock. For this man with no honor, no decency, all that counts is winning, whatever the cost. Opinion.

Maybe all you need to know is that Dearborn was the birthplace of Henry Ford. This was where he maintained his home and business.

He was the most flagrant antisemite in American history. Throughout the 1930s. Nazi Towns sprung up across the. United States. You didn’t know? It is a fact.

Dearborn was one of those towns that marched for Hitler and hoisted the swastika.

Today, quite logically, Dearborn, or, the Islamic Republic of Dearborn, has the largest Muslim population per capita in the United States and therein sits the largest mosque in North America.

They came in from Arab countries and were expected to become part of the melting pot, but apparently, Jihad does not melt.

The Wall Street Journal named Dearborn “Jihad Central,” and so it is no wonder that days ago, to celebrate Al Quds, they chanted, “Death to Israel.”

That too is logical – considering the source.

But they also chanted “Death to America.” Here in America. So much for gratitude…and so this is the reward for American generosity.

Bring them in, give them citizenship, opportunity, freedom, prosperity…and this is their thank you. Many revert to the bigotries and grudges, against Jews, from whence they came.

Rashida Tlaib is a Palestinian Arab who represents them in the House through Michigan’s 12th congressional district, which is Dearborn…but also Ramallah

Ramallah first. Dearborn is a stage where she presses for the larger Palestinian Arab Cause. She is in solidarity with their cause against Israel.

She carries a big stick.

Yes, Jessica Tarlov. It was Tarlov, there on Fox News, speaking as the Liberal member of The Five, who remarked that the Squad, namely Tlaib, had no influence because they were so few.

Tell that to Joe Biden, whose entire campaign for re-election rests upon satisfying Tlaib and winning her district, her people, her Muslims.

Last time, he teetered at 2;78 percent for Michigan. That’s how close it was, and you could say, as Michigan goes, so goes the nation. He’s out. Trump is in.

Or, you could say, as Dearborn goes, so goes Michigan.

Biden needs Michigan, desperately, and so he will do anything to satisfy Tlaib and her flock. For him, all that counts is winning, whatever the cost.

No surprise then, that this man with no honor, no decency, would turn against Israel, taking every opportunity to condemn the Jewish State., and thereby favoring Hamas.

This would be like FDR turning coat and opting for Germany or Japan. Unimaginable? So is this, if it weren’t so.

Biden, if he ever read a book, would know that he owes it to his presidential legacy to stand with Israel and the Jews.

The brotherhood between American presidents and the Jewish People dates back to John Adams, the second president of the United States.

As it says in his memoirs and biographies, “Adams expressed Zionist sympathies and his respect for ancient Jewry.”

History, certainly Jewish history, remembers him as a mensch.

How will history, certainly Jewish history, remember Joe Biden, other than a stab-in-the-back turncoat.

No mensch, this loser.

New York-based bestselling American novelist Jack Engelhard writes regularly for Arutz Sheva.

He wrote the worldwide book-to-movie bestseller “Indecent Proposal,” the authoritative newsroom epic, “The Bathsheba Deadline,” followed by his coming-of-age classics, “The Girls of Cincinnati,” and, the Holocaust-to-Montreal memoir, “Escape from Mount Moriah.” For that and his 1960s epic “The Days of the Bitter End,” contemporaries have hailed him “The last Hemingway, a writer without peer, and the conscience of us all.” Contact here.
++++
Doth Biden, the Chameleon, protest too much?  

By pacifying Iran, by financing Iran's abilities, thus allowing Iran to both function through proxies and rush to develop their nuclear device, Biden probably has accomplished what he sought to avoid.

He has generally screwed up everything he touches.
+++
Who can stop the Democrats’ pivot away from Israel?
The turn against the Jewish state has spread from “The Squad” to Joe Biden, with exceptions like Pennsylvania Sen. John Fetterman standing against the pro-Hamas tide.
By JONATHAN S. TOBIN

Ever since the first four members of the left-wing congressional “Squad” made their debuts on Capitol Hill in January 2019, centrist Democrats have sought to reassure pro-Israel voters that the quartet of radicals were outliers in their party. At the time, that was largely true since most Democratic politicians and their congressional leaders were generally pro-Israel.

But the days of Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) and her pals—Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) and Ayanna Pressley (D-Mass.)—being isolated within their own caucus with respect to their attitudes towards Israel are over. Six months after the Hamas massacres in southern Israel on Oct. 7, their intense hostility to the Jewish state has spread far beyond the original members (whose own numbers have multiplied in the next two congressional elections) to become mainstream opinion within the Democratic Party. Large numbers of Democratic members of the House and Senate have come out in favor of bans on military aid to the Jewish state, as well as endorsing Hamas propaganda talking points about Israel committing “genocide” in the Gaza Strip.

More than that, the Biden administration has finally bowed to the intense pressure that had been building against it within their party base. After months of lobbying and petitions from lower-level federal officials, congressional staffers, Arab-American officeholders in Michigan and even President Joe Biden’s re-election campaign staff to pivot away from its initial stance of strong support for Israel and the eradication of Hamas finally succeeded in the last month.

Moving the ‘Overton window’

This means that just five years after “The Squad” entered the American political lexicon, not only have its members’ positions become mainstream opinion among the Democrats, it is those centrists who have stuck to their support for Israel who are now the outliers in the party. Among Democrats, as well as in mainstream media outlets and the popular culture that liberals control, the so-called “Overton Window”—a term that describes what is or is not acceptable discourse in polite society—has moved decisively towards the “Squad” when it comes to Israel.

Prominent among the new Democratic outliers is Sen. John Fetterman (D-Pa.), whose outspoken advocacy for Israel and support for the war against Hamas—and willingness to troll the pro-Hamas leftists who have been hounding him on Capitol Hill and elsewhere by repeatedly waving an Israeli flag in their faces—has not only brought down on him the opprobrium of the left but caused several prominent members of his staff to leave him.

Fetterman isn’t entirely alone among Democrats in sticking to what would have once been considered a normative expression of a bipartisan consensus but that is now generally only a position uttered by Republicans. Others like Sen. Jackie Rosen (D-Nev.) and Rep. Richie Torres (D-N.Y.) are also among those Democrats who haven’t bowed to the dictates of their party’s intersectional base. It’s also true that some members of the now-expanded “Squad”—Omar, Rep. Summer Lee (D-Pa.) and Jamaal Bowman (D-N.Y.)—are facing tough primary challenges from more centrist opponents who are getting a lot of support from the pro-Israel community.

Whether they survive those contests or not, it’s clear that the Democratic Party is at a crossroads with respect to the Jewish state.

Until his recovery from the massive stroke he suffered while campaigning for the Senate in 2022, Fetterman was assumed to be a hardcore left-winger and won the Democratic primary that year largely on that basis. His more recent stands are only newsworthy because they are so very different from those of the rest of the Senate Democratic caucus. That includes Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who, despite his farcical claim to be Israel’s shomer or “guardian,” has openly backed Biden’s about-face and demanded regime change in Jerusalem in order for the Jewish state to elect a more pliant leader who will obey Washington’s diktats.

Biden backs a Hamas victory

Biden’s efforts to force Israel to accept an immediate ceasefire with Hamas and stern warnings that any effort to finish the destruction of the terrorist group’s military formations in their last stronghold in Rafah would result in exactly the ban on military aid that left-wing Democrats have been demanding all along. Threats of Washington allowing dangerous U.N. resolutions that would make Israel a pariah state to pass are also on the table. Essentially, it is now administration policy that aid to the side that started the war on Oct. 7 is the priority and that on no account should Israel act to eradicate the terrorist group that is pledged to its destruction. That means that if Biden’s pressure on Israel succeeds, Hamas will emerge as the victor of a war that the Islamist group began with the largest mass slaughter of Jews since the Holocaust.

Given the vehemence of Biden’s first reactions to Oct. 7 and his commitment to the elimination of the terror group, this is a remarkable turnaround.

The origins of the Democrats pivot can be seen in former President Barack Obama’s spats with Israel, and his appeasement of Iran and its nuclear program, which most Democrats endorsed despite the danger it posed to Israel and the West.

The recent turnabout can in part be blamed on the drumbeat of biased media coverage of the war as liberal corporate media outlets have acted as Hamas’s stenographers, repeating their bogus casualty statistics; ignoring the terrorists’ theft of aid; and mainstreaming smears about Israel committing “genocide” and being responsible for starvation in Gaza, despite abundant evidence to the contrary.

But it would be wrong to blame it all on Obama, or the distorted reporting and commentary about the war in news outlets that Democrats read and watch. The sea change among Democrats has been decades in the making as leftist ideologies like critical race theory and intersectionality, which falsely labeled Jews and Israel as “white oppressors,” became orthodox opinion in liberal institutions rather than being confined to the fever swamps of the far left.

The mobs chanting for Israel’s destruction and terrorism against Jews in the streets of America’s cities and on college campuses, as well as those harassing Biden on the campaign trail by accusing him of aiding Israeli “genocide,” aren’t being ignored or condemned by Democrats. Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris are determined to conciliate them and demonstrate that they understand and respect their positions.

Just as significant is when prominent Democrats like Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren endorse the blood libel that Israel is committing genocide, not only has she not faced an avalanche of criticism from Democratic activists, donors and voters, but it is considered an unremarkable and normative statement.

No one should be surprised by any of this.

Even in 2019, when centrists were pooh-poohing alarmism about the acceptance of “Squad” members, their assurances rang hollow. Those radicals had enough influence within the Democratic caucus back then to prevent one of their charter members—Omar—from being singled out for censure by the House of Representatives for her open and blatant antisemitism. Almost from the first moment that they set foot in Congress, they were treated like rock stars by the corporate liberal media, including appearing on the cover of Rolling Stone magazine with then-House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and being feted on the late-night comedy shows that are daily in-kind contributions to the Democrats.

The progressives take over

This process continued the following year when, after the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis in May 2020, Democrats en masse endorsed the Black Lives Matter movement that was tainted by antisemitism. In the moral panic of that summer, Democrats also found themselves adopting the toxic radical ideologies that helped motivate the “mostly peaceful” riots that wreaked havoc around the nation. Other than conservative critics, no one in the media seemed to notice the capture not just of the academy by the far left, but also of Washington after Biden signed executive orders in January 2021 that made the woke catechism of diversity, equity and inclusion official government policy had also helped move the “Overton window” about Israel. Whereas in the past, one would have never encountered advocacy for Israel’s destruction on the editorial pages of The New York Times or The Washington Post or viewed on MSNBC, soon it became routine.

Seen in that light, the open revolt of the left-wing activists who help staff Democratic Party offices and institutions against Biden’s first reactions to Oct. 7 was entirely predictable. And though it didn’t have to happen, given the fact that Biden has—throughout his half-century in politics—been a weathervane that always pointed in the direction of popular opinion in his party, it was also probably inevitable that his pro-Israel impulses that were on display six months ago would quickly be discarded.

Though most Democrats don’t seem to realize this, in a nation where most Americans still support Israel and oppose its terrorist opponents, there are still more pro-Israel votes to be lost in the political center by abandoning the Jewish state than on the far left for being too hostile to Hamas. Yet it has become the conventional wisdom among Democrats that the continuation of the war until Hamas’s elimination is an obstacle to Biden’s re-election. That is the reason for the reluctance of even Democratic Congress members who were considered stalwart backers of Israel to condemn Biden’s threats and be willing to mandate a Hamas victory.

There has been a troubling outbreak of anti-Israel sentiment that embraces antisemitism among some conservative talk-show hosts like Candace Owens and Tucker Carlson. But almost all Republican officeholders have lined up behind Israel and against Biden’s betrayal of the Jewish state. Evangelical and conservative Christian support for Israel rooted in their faith will also ensure that the GOP remains faithful.

Where does that leave Democratic outliers like Fetterman?

Democratic centrists are numerous enough to still exercise some influence within their party and are likely to succeed in general elections when they can count on pro-Israel voters outnumbering the antisemites in districts and states that aren’t deep blue. But it would be foolish to pretend that they are the future of the party when compared to media stars like AOC, who can count on the support of not just loyal activists, but leftist press and cultural institutions. It’s hard to see how any scenario in which the political left’s hold on the Democrats weakens either in the event of a second Biden term, where they will remain in power, or in opposition if Trump wins in November and the party probably becomes even more susceptible to extremism.

The horror of Oct. 7 should have resulted in the isolation of Israel-haters; however, the opposite has happened among Democrats. That means that politicians like Fetterman are going to be increasingly the exception to the rule among Democrats, and it will make his political courage all the more praiseworthy and deserving of support. But it will also leave us increasingly in a situation in which the vital backing that Israel needs from America will become solely a function of partisan battles between Democrats and Republicans. No matter which party prevails in 2024, that’s very good news for antisemites, who have long fantasized about the crackup of the U.S.-Israel alliance and can now see their dream close to realization.
++++


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Report: Iran closer than ever to nuclear weapons
Washington Post report finds Iran engaged in flurry of activity at Fordow facility, enriching uranium at increased rate, could have enough for 3 bombs in days,



Nuclear Iran


Iran has greatly increased activity at the Fordow nuclear facility, moving it closer than ever to the production of nuclear weapons, according to a report published today (Wednesday) by the Washington Post.

Citing the International Atomic Energy Association's report on its February inspection of the Fordow facility, the Post noted that Fordow is undergoing a significant expansion that could double its output. In addition, Iran has been enriching a growing amount of uranium to near-weapons-grade at increasing levels, violating most limits on the amount of enriched uranium the country is allowed to have.

Officials said that Iran has enough highly enriched uranium now to create enough fuel for three nuclear bombs in as little as a few days to a few weeks. The creation of a "crude" bomb could take up to six months, while producing a warhead capable of being fitted on a missile could take up to two years.

The report noted that the Trump Administration pulled out of the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran in 2018 and stated that the withdrawal from the deal caused Iran to abandon it as well. The report only noted the deal's sunset provisions, which would see all restrictions on Iran's nuclear program expire in the coming years, in explaining the State of Israel's objections to the deal.

The Trump Administration imposed broad sanctions on Iran to curb its malignant activity and nuclear program. The Biden Administration, in an attempt to restore the nuclear deal, granted significant sanctions relief even as Iran ramped up its nuclear program again and refused any new agreement.

American and European officials stated that the Iranian regime feels emboldened to pursue its nuclear weapons program due to its strengthening alliances with Russia and China.

 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Blinken the military expert.
+++

Raids and airstrikes can be tactically effective, but they don’t amount to a strategy for winning a war.

But could it? A strategy dependent on raids and airstrikes alone has never been effective in defeating a large enemy. If Israel believes a military response is the only way it can defeat Hamas, it should ignore Washington and pursue a ground invasion supported by targeted raids and airstrikes.

U.S. thinking about the war is plagued by what former White House national security adviser Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster called the “Zero Dark Thirty” fallacy. The term—named for the 2012 film about the operation that killed Osama bin Laden—refers to the mistaken belief that raiding alone can constitute a military strategy. Gen. McMaster described the thinking: “The capability to conduct raids against networked terrorist or insurgent organizations is portrayed as a substitute for, rather than a complement to, conventional joint force capability.” In other words, we can’t expect strategic outcomes from tactical missions.

America’s military efforts reflect that axiom. In the Iraq war, the U.S. quickly ousted Saddam Hussein’s Baath party and fought multiyear counterterror and counterinsurgency campaigns against enemy forces. The U.S. was successful through the combination of a small number of special operations using intelligence-driven raids to target terrorist leaders and a large number of conventional forces working to secure the local population, gather intelligence and help build institutions for governance.

In their new book, “Conflict: The Evolution of Warfare from 1945 to Ukraine,” Gen. David Petraeus and historian Andrew Roberts argue that intelligence-driven special-ops raids aren’t enough to wage successful counterinsurgency campaigns. Such efforts must be combined with a population-centric strategy, requiring sizable conventional forces to “clear, hold, build” in insurgent sanctuaries.

The same goes for counterterrorism campaigns that involve drone strikes and precision bombing. President Obama conducted hundreds of drone strikes against terrorist networks between 2009 and 2017. In many cases, those strikes may have been the only prudent or politically viable option. The fallacy emerges, however, when policymakers believe that raids and precision attacks are the best options simply because they’re popular.

Hamas isn’t a typical terrorist group. It governs Gaza with significant military capability, including prepared defenses, hundreds of miles of defensive tunnels, and thousands of rockets. Its fighters were believed to number 30,000 to 40,000 at the start of the war, and most of them hide among the civilian population. This makes a strategy reliant on targeted raids extremely difficult. Whereas so-called decapitation strikes may be an effective strategy against small terrorist groups, their success would be dubious against an enemy of Hamas’s size.

There is no historical evidence that commando raids or a series of precision strikes have defeated a deeply entrenched urban defender. Gen. McMaster argues that “like precision strikes, raids often embolden rather than dissuade the enemy.” Short-lived raids also place the raiding force in a vulnerable position, especially when their mission is their dominant strategic tactic. The U.S. realized this firsthand after its seventh raid into Mogadishu, Somalia, in 1993, which led to the death of 18 service members. Israel knows the best way to mitigate this risk is to employ raids in concert with a large conventional force.

The same applies to targeted airstrikes, which require time to gather actionable intelligence on key leaders. Recommending that Israel rely on this tactic ignores that the ammunition necessary to destroy the enemy could cause more collateral damage than a ground invasion would. Israel has already killed aid workers with errant strikes. Urging its forces to depend on raids and airstrikes is likely to exacerbate this problem, not reduce it.

America’s record of fighting in enemy-held cities underscores how a raid-and-strike approach is ineffective. When U.S. forces prematurely terminated the First Battle of Fallujah in the spring of 2004, they were left to conduct only strikes and occasional raids against al Qaeda targets within the city. This approach was so fruitless that the coalition was forced to conduct the Second Battle of Fallujah six months later, involving a large conventional force that had months to prepare against a much smaller force than Hamas is today. When coalition forces cleared Ramadi and other Iraqi cities between 2004 and 2006, they used a combination of precision strikes and a large coalition presence. Ditto for the Battle of Mosul in 2016-17, when the U.S.-backed Iraqis employed conventional land and air power against a much smaller force in a less defensive posture than Israel faces in Gaza.

Recent history has proved that commando raids and precision strikes are a tactic, not a strategy to win a war. No matter how much Washington argues to the contrary, Israel understands the fallacy.

Mr. Spencer is chair of urban warfare studies at West Point’s Modern War Institute. Mr. Collins is executive director of the Madison Policy forum and a fellow at New America Foundation. They are the co-authors of “Understanding Urban Warfare.”

In his final appearance before the House Armed Services Committee on March 20, 2024, Navy Admiral John Aquilino repeatedly referenced the need to 'speed up' the U.S. defense effort in the Indo-Pacific, with China's military expanding on a 'scale not seen since WWII,' and growing cooperation between China, Russia and Iran setting up a new 'axis of evil.' 

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 

Sent to me by a dear fiend, fellow Jew and memo reader:

+++

I try not to hate so-called "progressives" but this makes it hard. I guess it's reciprocal since they clearly hate Jews.


Why I Resigned From the DC Abortion Fund

The landscape of organizations ostensibly working to advance sexual and reproductive health has become mired in antisemitism

By Allison Tombros Korman


Read Article: https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/why-i-resigned-from-dc-abortion-fund

+++++++++++++++++

ZIONIST ORGANIZATION OF AMERICA

WEBINAR RECAP


Thank you to all who joined us yesterday for a fantastic webinar featuring renowned urban warfare expert Major John Spencer, titled, "Warning — World is Playing into Hamas’ Strategy."


Alan Jay, ZOA National Executive Director, welcomed our guests and introduced ZOA National President Mort Klein, who then introduced Major John Spencer and Greater Philadelphia ZOA Executive Director Steve Feldman. Steve conducted a superb interview (as usual) and Major Spencer provided our viewers with his award-winning expertise on this heavy and timely topic.


We thank Major Spencer for taking the time to speak with us, and I thank Mort, Alan and Steve for their work in making this happen.


And to those who reached out because you were not able to watch live — it was 9 am on a weekday after all — I am pleased to share the recording with you, below. Please watch, re-watch, and share! And of course, please donate to help us continue our work.


Sincerely,

Jackie Shafer

Communications Manager

Zionist Organization of America



No comments: