On the Controversy Surrounding Rashida Tlaib’s and Ilhan Omar’s Denial of Entry to Israel
Israel has recently denied entry to two US Congresswomen - Rashida Tlaib and Ilhan Omar who, together with two other Congresswomen, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Ayanna Pressley, have been bashing Israel and American Jews at every opportunity, expressing conventional antisemitic and anti-Israel tropes, while backing and reinforcing BDS. They have infected the Democratic party with their venom and employed their gender and minority status (Muslims, Black, Hispanic) as a shield against criticism.
Anyone who disagreed with their uninformed, dimwitted, biased and ignorant views has been labeled a racist, a label that the extreme and even less than extreme Left, as well as Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the US House of Representatives, together with a vast majority of the media, loved to embrace and celebrate. And since, in the age of “me too”, a person, once accused of misconduct, is considered guilty before being proved innocent, most people are reluctant to challenge the antisemitic “Squad” comprising these four racist women, because most people try to refrain from being accused of racism, even though the accusation may have no merit.
It was made very clear by way of these two Congresswomen’s proposed agenda what was behind the visit to Israel and the West Bank. They intended to go to the Palestinian population centers in the West Bank and promote a “suffering” image of the Palestinian people with the help of the media who would follow their every step and devour the red meat these two would disseminate. It would have brought about a negative perspective of distorted reality and cause a great deal of damage to Israel’s image in the eyes of the uninformed public. Denying this opportunity was wise and mandatory.
As it turned out later, Israel was able to expose Rashida Tlaib’s true intentions for all to see by lifting the restriction on her entry to the state, allowing her to come and visit with her grandmother, only to be rebuffed by Mrs. Rashida, who declined Israel’s open arms, justifying her latest decision by means of a hate speech against Israel.
It should be noted that these two antisemitic squad members had been invited a short time earlier to visit Israel and the West Bank together with a delegation of US dignitaries including senators and House Members. They declined that invitation because the agenda was not to their liking. Apparently, the opportunity to demonize Israel with no pushback or interference was lacking. They wanted to go solo; they wanted more freedom for broadcasting their toxic message without a challenge backed by reality.
Still, many supporters of Israel including AIPAC (America-Israel Public Affairs Committee) were disappointed with the Israeli government’s decision. They wanted the Jewish State to maintain the democratic semblance of the Israeli system; they perceived the visit’s denial as a biting inconsistency contrasting Israel’s democratic values. They voiced their opinion in an attempt to change the Israeli government’s decision.
But wait a minute. These same people never objected when the US was doing the same or worse when it came to the US own interests. No intelligent person found it appropriate to accuse the US of being undemocratic in consequence. The US has recently sanctioned the foreign minister of Iran, Mohammad Javad Zarif. (Those who dislike President Trump may blame him rather than the US for this specific sanctioning, claiming that Trump does not represent the US. It’s a ridiculous claim but it could very well be argued by his opponents), but then, President Obama sanctioned over 400 individuals from Russia, Crimea, Ukraine following the Russian takeover of the Crimean Peninsula. The US has sanctioned many prominent individuals from many parts of the world to protect its own National Security. Did AIPAC accuse the US of being undemocratic as a result? (Note that sanctioning goes way, way beyond denial of entry). Why then, Israel, in trying to protect its National Security (protecting a national semblance is important to preserving national security)—by refusing to bend over to BDS representatives and help them accomplish the spreading of their spite—why then is the Jewish State viewed as if it exhibits an undemocratic conduct in denying entry to its crooked enemies? Standing up to your enemy and refusing to be rolled over is not undemocratic when the US is doing it. That same standard should be applied to Israel as well. By standing up to Its enemies israel demonstrated bravery in the face of all these naïve critics.
Enemies of Israel should be treated as enemies regardless of whether they comprise kings, queens, presidents, government ministers or even US Congressmen or Congresswomen. Their hostile actions should not be facilitated by the Israeli government. On the contrary, they should be fought back on every single front, whether it is their home turf or especially inside the Jewish State where Israel maintains its homecourt advantage.
These anti-Semites must be defeated.
It was one more outrageous statement by Congresswoman Ilhan Omar who referred to the 9\11 al-Qaeda’s terror attack on the US as a trifling “something” made happen by some Muslims. This statement unmasked Omar’s mindset with respect to where her loyalty was dwelling. Her minimization of the 9\11 calamity, and her implied tolerance of Islamic terrorism clearly placed her allegiance with the Islamic fundamentalists who view the US as their chief nemesis.
She did not see herself as an American first. She deemed herself as a poor, ill-treated Muslim who happened to reside in America.
But if this portrait were not instructive enough or not contemptable enough, the rest of her statement was even more alarming. She was seeking power to commit atrocities with impunity by her and her comrades, Muslim members of antisemitic CAIR, a terrorist organization masquerading as a civil-rights movement. She claimed to be a victim of Islamophobia— “Someone did something, then all of us (meaning Muslims) started to lose our access to civil liberties.”
Her statement clearly implied that criticism and enraged expressions directed at her were an unswerving upshot of racism borne out of Islamophobic predispositions rather than a reaction to her own stir-frying. “Some people did something” and now all these racists blame her and all Muslims for that “something”. Only that her description of the 9\11 atrocities were highly offensive to non-Muslim Americans.
When President Trump and others criticized and condemned Omar for her impertinent stance, some left-minded, useful idiots, including some highly-positioned Democrats, reacted to these condemnations by coming out in Omar’s defense, attacking those who had decried her statements and disrespectful insolence, blaming them for racism and islamophobia. Many of these Democrats encourage Omar to keep on pursuing her outrageous scandalous activities, her anti-patriotic attacks on America, her antisemitic attacks on Jews, by painting her as a victim. They let her use her Muslim, black female status as a shield; They told her that she could go on spreading venom with impunity since any condemnation, any criticism, would be pushed back by framing them as racism against her race, religion and gender.
Unlike antisemitism, Islamophobia is not entrenched in bigotry but rather in fear, anxiety and suspicion of Muslims and their potential acceptance of Islamic Terrorism—Terrorism committed in the name of their religion. Unfortunately, these Islamic terrorists illuminate Jihad and the Dhimmi culture comprising the worst part of Islam. They bring it out to the fore, persuading the rest of the world that they are the true representatives of that religion. They are the reason for; they are the ones who have been breeding and promoting Islamophobia. And although they may be a small percentage within the billion plus Muslims out there, they still account for many millions.
Problem is that Ilhan and many of her friends do not come out condemning these radical acts, neither do they distance themselves from the sick brutes who perform them.
Take the recent slaughters in Sri-Lanka. Where are these Israel-bashing Muslims now? Don’t they have “something” to say?
Some of these Muslims justify or even support the terrorists’ actions; some of them minimize the magnitude of the atrocities, dismissing them as “something”, and many of them keep silent in light of these acts of violence. Many including Omar, view these terrorists as family members who have gone astray. Still, they are family members; “Don’t they deserve our love and understanding?”
And there is a worrisome phenomenon among Democrat Jewish leaders in Congress. They were supposed to stand up and fight antisemitism regardless of whether it stemmed from their hometown, their district, their state, their Democratic Party or Ilhan Omar. These prominent politicians have been keeping silent, and some, like Chuck Schumer, the Jewish senator and minority leader, even joined those useful idiots (those who came out to uphold Omar’s remarks on 9\11) in condemning President Trump’s justified denunciation of Omar.
Jewish leaders, especially those who used to have Israel’s back, should not come to the defense of this anti-Semite, loud-mouth even if they feel that it serves them politically for the moment. Their approval of her conduct enhances her credibility; it provides her with assurances that her reasonings are sound. Next time she spews her antisemitic tropes, she will do so because she has been emboldened by her fellow Jewish comrades’ approval and support and their politically-motivated bolstering arguments in her favor. She will do so because these same Jewish leaders upgraded her victimhood status by fashioning an impunity-filled domain for her to play and propagate her antisemitic indoctrination.
Ilhan Omar is not a victim. She is a privileged freeloader. She makes use of her minority status to establish impunity for her antisemitic and anti-American campaign. And she has been successful. Democratic Jewish leaders have come out for her support.
Where are you Chuck Schumer? Where are you Elissa Slotkin, Kim Schrier, Max Rose, Dean Phillips, Elain Luria, Andy Levin, Susan Wild, Jaimy Raskin, David Kustoff, Josh Gottheimer, Alan Lowenthal, Lois Frankel, Suzanne Bonamic, David Cicilline, Ted Deutch, John Yarmuth, Steve Cohen, Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Adam Schiff, Susan Davis, Jan Schakowsky, Brad Sherman, Jerry Nadler, Bernie Sanders, Nita Lowey, Eliot Engel, Jacky Rosen, Brian Schatz, Richard Blumenthal, Ben Cardin, Ron Wyden?
Have you all gone to sleep? Has politics clouded your senses? Are you all going to stand silent or even sponsor the onslaught when American Jews are being stricken, while your Jewish Family members in Israel are threatened with demolition, while American values are being dismissed?
Don’t let this shameful victimhood-disguised impunity develop or you’ll be signing yours and your loved-ones’ downfall. Get up and fight back, just like the Black Caucus, CAIR, and many others who do so - justifiably or unjustifiably - whenever they feel threatened.
The latest action by the Democratic House of Representatives condemning all forms of hate—rather than singling out an anti-Semitic Spring within its own ranks—has contributed to a gross distortion, typical of an ignorant liberal thinking, presuming that all forms of hate may be thrown into a single bowl to fashion one appealing salad.
It’s very possible that the ineffectual resolution was not sorted out under malicious intent, but rather under an ignorance-soaked naivete. Still, the outcome was a shameful misrepresentation of reality, serving the wrong purpose, leaving the door open for more of the same antisemitic outbursts by those who had been left unscathed.
Antisemitism and Islamophobia are both depraved forms of hate, but the root causes affecting them are light years apart.
Antisemitism’s origins were pioneered, borne and promoted by those who were looking for scapegoats. It was originally instituted by religious zealots who tried to promote Christianity by spreading fake historical counts, blaming Jews for killing Jesus, while masking the true executioners—their own Roman predecessors. Their followers looked for the easy prey, the weak faction, the ones who looked different, dressed differently, worshiped God via a competing religion, celebrated different holidays and attended to different customs.
In short; antisemitism was originated by the losers who were able to move the masses on hate-waves against a frail, vulnerable sect. It also presented an opportunity by these anti-Semite losers to legally rob these “subhuman” Jewish creatures and feed on their belongings.
Islamophobia, on the other hand, did not find its roots in bigotry by those who practiced it. Unlike anti-Semitism, it was instigated by those who feared this religion. Islam was spread by conquest, by violence, by the Dhimmi culture, which preached Jihad and absolute intolerance. Islam in its pure form was, still is, a political religion. It has been attempting to dominate the rest of the world, and not necessarily by way of peaceful means.
Muslims who practice this religion to its fullest deem non-Muslims as blasphemous subhuman beings of the worst kind, deserving death through torture. This is not true of all or even most Muslims, but the extreme zealots among them, like ISIS, al-Qaeda, al-Shabab, and even the ruthless dictatorships practiced by so many Middle-eastern and Africa’s Muslim states or sub states, instigate fear and anxiety about Muslims in general.
Muslims—the ones we do not know personally. We never know whether we should or should not fear them. But we are on guard; we suspect them. Their presence makes us anxious. Are they terrorists? Even a relatively small violent minority out of the huge peaceful populace comprises a very large number. Hence, we, instinctively, profile them; we become Islamophobic out of fear and anxiety. It’s automatic. It’s human nature.
This is never the case of anti-Semitism. We do not fear Jews. We do not suspect them of being potential terrorists. The anti-Semites hate them because they believe in the lies concerning Jewish influence and power in politics and high finance. Some Anti-Semites hate the Jews because they hate Israel and Zionism. They feel for the Palestinian underdogs regardless of the fact that the Palestinians want to keep this underdog status. They like being viewed as victims and they do not want to change that image. They even use violence, inviting retaliation to sustain that underdog, victim image. They keep fooling the fools and the bigots.
Packaging antisemitism and Islamophobia into the same bucket and condemning unjustified hate as if these two are undistinguishable is like viewing Nancy Pelosi and Donald Trump as a potential couple just because both are politicians.
The roots driving these types of hate are vastly diverse. Any medicine designed to fight and suppress these phenomena must be tailored to the specific syndrome.
Antisemitism and Islamophobia should never be treated as equals. Anything else is ineffective, confusing and misleading.
The recent debate in the US on what constitutes antisemitism has exposed the Democratic party to a dark side it has been trying to disguise in its effort to keep the progressive image it has been identified with for a long time. The word “progressive” is rooted in the word “progress”. It implies broad and open-mindedness, forward-thinking, and most importantly, non-judgmental and unprejudiced bearing. Anti-Semitism is the exact opposite of that definition.
The Democratic party is no longer embraced by a true progressive prospectus. The newly elected younger troupe, an inexperienced, big-headed but ignorant bunch, who believe in their own boundless wisdom and moral superiority, have now taken control of the far-left agenda and have had it wrapped around the entire party. These days, these ignorant, boorish party members are calling the shots.
The entire group of declared Democratic presidential candidates, in their attempt to win their party’s acceptance, try to outdo each other’s designs of how to spend other people’s money, how to punish the successful, how to kill entrepreneurial spirits, while letting the government take care of things. They have distorted the definition of “virtuous” versus “evil”, characterizing the rich and the successful as the bad guys by definition; the poor, the underdogs, and the losers as the good guys.
They project this state of mind into the Arab-Israeli conflict, where naturally, the Palestinian Arabs (ignoring, of course, the super wealthy Arab states that fund Arab terror) play the part of the poor underdog while Israel is painted in the colors of the false propaganda the far-left is so keen on guzzling. Accordingly, they demonize Israel and they disseminate brotherly love to Israel’s enemies.
And although the radical horde is a minority within the Democratic party, their loud voice and their extreme political positions have not been suppressed by the adult, more practiced and skilled veterans. On the contrary, the Democratic leadership in Congress made it a habit to appease these loudmouths and let them paint the entire party in their far-left colors.
In my debates with some far-left enthusiasts whose Jew-hatred frame of mind is legitimized by focusing on the Jewish State’s perceived wrong-doing and its effect on the American Jews, I discovered the arguments they employ in condemning Israel and its supporters in the US, and where the chasm in their understanding of the truth is.
The first and foremost argument—alleged by the far-left anti-Semites in the Democratic party and their supporters—accuses Jewish American folks of disloyalty to the US. Support of Israel is characterized as a pledge of allegiance to a foreign country. This distortion of facts and intentions must be refuted.
The innuendo implied by the “foreign country” designation carries the connotation of an allegiance to an adversarial or even an enemy entity like ISIS, al-Qaeda, Iran, North Korea, Russia, China, etc. Israel is none of those. It’s light years incongruent. The US government under previous Democrat and Republican presidents has supported Israel to an extraordinary degree. This support is a result of US clear security interests (in addition to intelligence sharing and security cooperation), and feelings of closeness due to similar culture and democratic value-system.
The US government supports South Korea, Japan, Taiwan, with their defense needs. That includes risking the lives of American soldiers. The US is a member of NATO. That includes an American military intervention in case one of the NATO countries is attacked.
President Roosevelt, during WWII, sent his military to fight for the UK, France, Holland, Belgium, Italy, Greece against the Nazis. He sent weapons to the Soviet Union. He may have or may not have signed a pledge, but he spilled American blood. Did he exhibit dual loyalty?
President Eisenhower sent troops to South Korea to save them from the North. A lot of American blood was spilled. Did he exercise dual loyalty?
Does anybody believe that American support of these foreign countries is reflective of disloyalty to the US? Why then, is support of Israel considered unfaithfulness to the US by the new progressives?
Is it antisemitism in disguise? This is what the Democrat Party has turned into.
Another depraved accusation pointed at Israel is the “Illegal Occupation” of Palestinian and Syrian territories and Israel’s mistreatment of Palestinian residents in these territories. This one is a typical far-left deceptiveness-based argument in favor of the perceived underdog—the Palestinian Arabs.
The territories in question were conquered by Israel in 1967 in a defensive war where Syria (in control of the Golan Heights), Jordan (in control of the 'West Bank') and Egypt (in control of the Sinai Peninsula) declared war on Israel with the objective of wiping the Jewish State off the map. (And by the way, Is that legal?) Had they won, they would have instigated another Holocaust, but fortunately, they lost. And now, they want to ignore the reason Israel had no choice but to remain in these territories to defend the Jewish land from further attacks.
Israel returned the Sinai Peninsula to Egypt in 1979 as part of a peace accord. Israel withdrew from most of the 'West Bank' after the Oslo Peace agreement in 1993 between Rabin and Arafat but had to return after The Palestinian Arabs drew on their unregimented land as a staging ground for attacking and murdering innocent Israeli civilians.
Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza and uprooted all the Israeli communities there and their Jewish residents in hope of securing a peaceful neighbor who would utilize the unfettered territory to boost their economy with Israeli assistance. But once again, the Hamas terrorist organization decided to exploit the newly acquired territory as a staging ground for rocket launches aimed at the civilian population inside the Jewish State.
A blockade of Gaza boils down to restrictions on imported goods. Gaza has no seaport or airport. Israel does not allow that for good reasons. These facilities will be used for smuggling military ware designed to harm Israel.
Accusing Israel for blockading Gaza is like blaming zoo keepers for keeping hyaenas confined to a fenced habitat. Accusing Israel for “occupying" the 'West Bank' is like blaming the babysitter for keeping an eye on the unruly kids who are fascinated by matches and fire.
The Democratic party has failed to censure its young, ignorant, Israel-bashing, anti-Semitic members. The party leaders have appeased them, accepted their disruptive conduct and have let this antisemitic movement inside the party grow legitimized and keep metastasizing with no serious attempt to throw a bit of chemotherapy in their direction, barring their poisonous venom from becoming a new norm.
This is not what the US is meant to be. This party should never be allowed to rule over the American people. I am done with them. I only wish that many other potential voters and especially the Jewish voters amongst them will see the light, will see the truth, will see the danger.
As of late, there has been a raucous discussion in the media and in Congress on whether criticism of Israel should be considered anti-Semitism.
Somali-American, Ilhan Omar, the newly elected representative to Congress has been the most vocal anti-Semite who adopted classical anti-Semitic sentiments in her ceaseless criticism and demonization of Israel. She has done that under the guise of the first amendment to the constitution, i.e., under “Free Speech”,
And she justified it further by claiming that Jews supporting Israel are exhibiting disloyalty to the US since they pledge an allegiance to a foreign country.
Had it been limited to just Omar and a couple of other petty-minded, insignificant individuals, we would have accepted this grand spectacle of Jew-hatred as a non-event, but the worrisome sequel of that episode is the danger to Israel’s existence it has unveiled. All present Democratic candidates to the 2020 presidential elections in the US have stated support for Omar’s right to Free Speech (Even though this form of free speech has been clearly smelled and felt like classical anti-Semitism). These candidates excused Omar by explaining away her wrong choice of words—she should be more careful next time, they contended.
If one of these candidates is ever elected to the highest office in the free world it would wreak catastrophic consequences on the Jewish State. This looming jeopardy could potentially become the greatest existential threat Israel has ever faced.
The growing clout and influence of the Far-Left movement within the Democratic Party in the US, the great influence and exposure of Alexandria Octazio-Cortez (AOC), Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Bernie Sanders and others, has only served to underscore that danger.
What’s more, voices and influence of BDS and the many anti-Israel and anti-Semitic movements on campuses, supporters of these anti-Semites all over the US have been rising, and the anti-Trump crusade has been getting louder and louder as the Democratic Party’s shift to the far-left has been gaining persistent momentum.
But the two arguments, the ones that argued by those in the far-left herd--
1) "Criticism of Israel should not be considered a form of anti-Semitism”
2) “Jews who support Israel do pledge an allegiance to a foreign country”, and therefore the direct implication is that Jews who support Israel are traitors, double agents, turncoats, spies, etc. This is clearly another form of Jew-demonization, or what anti-Semitism is all about.
Let’s take each one of the above and refute it by applying facts and logic.
1) When criticism of Israel concerning "lack of human rights for Palestinian Arabs," coined by supporters of those who are the chief violators of human rights, it is a form of hypocrisy on steroids. It can only be rationalized by pointing to an irrational hate that drives this bearing, or in other words—anti-Semitism.
Criticism of Israel that is based on lies, hateful and false propaganda without resorting to fact-checking, is a form of irrational hate for the Jewish State. Relying on hateful and false propaganda is nourishing when it seems to validate this Jew-hatred frame of mind.
Those who justify criticism of Israel by resorting to arguments like “Occupation, Blockade (of Gaza),” “support Israel’s right to exist can only be granted if Israel supports the Palestinians right to exist”— These arguments are entrenched in ignorance. So-called "Occupation" is a necessary evil designed to secure peace inside Israel. Israeli citizens living in Israel would not be able to live in peace if the Israeli military and security forces abandoned the "West Bank".
If Palestinians want to be in total charge of their areas (at present, they have independent rule in what are called Areas A and B) they must prove their intent to be peaceful neighbors, something they refuse to admit to. And recent history past the Oslo Accord and the Israeli withdrawal from the "West bank", proved to be fatal to Israel. The Israeli military had to come back and control the territory. It was the only way peaceful existence and security for Israelis could materialize.
Fact—There is no occupation of Gaza. There is, however, control over material goods entering the Gaza Strip. The control imposed on imported material is designed to stop smuggling of arms and other military ware designed to harm the Jewish State. If these Hamas skippers wanted to have their own seaport or airport bypassing Israeli control, they should have abandoned their rocket launchers and false dreams of wiping Israel off the map before talking about blockade removal.
What’s more, Gaza has a border with Egypt. The so-called blockade is implemented by the Egyptians as well, but Israel is the only one criticized for it. Singling out Israel for reasons that the Palestinian Arabs are responsible for and ignoring the part played by Egypt is a form of anti-Semitism.
2) Claim of allegiance to a foreign government by those inspired by their hate of Israel and love of Israel’s enemies exposes these same people to a counter claim of allegiance to Israel’s enemies. These claims are clearly anti-Semitic as I explained above.
Anti-Semitism is a cancer that has started metastasizing inside the US. It has started with the far-left, and it has conquered hubs inside the Democratic Party and within Congress. The Democratic party has been moving bit by bit farther to the left and closer to Israel’s enemies. The party has failed to condemn anti-Semitism. It failed to condemn anti-Semites within its own ranks, and it has gone belly up my support.
Shame on them.
August 14th, 2018
BLOOD IS RUNNING COLD
It may be quiet today along the Gaza border, but this serene atmosphere is deceptive. The seeming tranquility can and will certainly be disrupted by Hamas for no apparent reason in the near future. The perpetual cycle of Hamas’s violence is no longer unpredictable. It is a fact of life.
I find it entirely inconceivable that Hamas keeps harassing Israel, torching Israeli terrain, showering Israeli towns with rockets, mortars, bullets, breaking off ordinary living conditions for thousands of Israeli citizens who find themselves taking refuge in shelters for long nights and protracted days fearing for their lives.
I find it inconceivable because Israel is clearly capable of ending it all by employing Moshe Dayan’s famous reasoning: Whack them and finish (זבנג וגמרנו) (it does not sound as authentic in English as it does in Hebrew). It is inconceivable because Hamas is aware of Israel’s formidable power. But this power does not seem to deter these terrorists in the least.
I find it inconceivable because Israeli leaders, beginning with the prime minister, and moving down the pecking order to those responsible for Israel’s security in the cabinet and in the armed forces, keep reassuring the public about the effective retaliatory punishments they inflict on Hamas, teaching them a lesson they should not forget. But is it really working? Are they telling us the truth? all these “effective” retaliation measures seem to be of no avail. Hamas does not seem to learn; they do seem to ignore, disregard and forget.
Evidently, Israel is incapable of deterring Hamas, because the Israeli leadership is way too apprehensive about world’s opinion, which, in their mind, would turn against Israel should the Jewish State try to end it all. And consequently, the unbearable situation will keep going on and on and on until the Israeli government shifts the unrealistic paradigm and decides to go nuts.
A massive, disproportionate reaction to Hamas’s violence seems to be the only way to extinguish this air of terrorist bravado and turn it into a historical dust. The Roman Empire did it to the Jews after the Bar Kochba revolt, wiping Judea off the map for 2000 years; The US did it to Japan in 1945, bringing World War II to an abrupt end. History is filled with similar examples.
At the same time, military conflicts that ended inconclusively or in less than an absolute, unconditional surrender by the losing side, have kept brewing under or above the surface with periodic violent eruptions like the Arab-Israeli wars, the instability of the Korean situation, the 100-year-war in Europe, and of course, the Gaza wars. Once again, history is jammed with many similar examples.
These examples and many more like them, make evident that the only way the conflict with Hamas can be brought to an abrupt end—a permanent end— is to crush these terrorists and thrust them into utter submission.
It is common knowledge and common understanding that in today’s world, international laws and public opinions make it impossible for Israel to act as decisively against Hamas as it would need to with the aim of ending this menace once and for all. But Israel does not have to go to the extreme deeds of the Roman Empire or the US in 1945. Israel needs to treat Hamas on the same level it contends with or intends to deal with Hezbollah and Lebanon, where any relatively minor violation of the ceasefire by Hezbollah may instigate an all-out-war, carrying an awfully heavy price Hezbollah is not willing and not ready to pay. Evidently, the border with Lebanon is tense, but it has been quiet since the last Lebanon war.
The foreign press and most of the universal international public opinion continue to lie about Israel, portraying it as an evil aggressor, a violator of human rights, a baby killer, etc. regardless of the fact that Hamas embarks on repeated violence, exploits human shield as a cover, and invites defensive retaliatory measures employed by Israel - defensive measures intended to avoid targeting civilians and even military personnel who do not impose an imminent threat, while hitting buildings and other structures used by Hamas’s fighting forces.
Israel’s restraint is not appreciated by most of the international community. It nullifies deterrence. It only encourages Hamas to get on with their violence, knowing that Israel’s hands are tied by the hostile press that’s ready to devour the red meat Hamas offers, while disseminating lies condemning Israel, disguising it as Breaking News.
And since Israeli restraint, or potentially, the lack of it makes no difference to the way the international community treats the Jewish State, the Israeli government should not be considerate of international public opinion when defending its citizens against terrorism. The Jewish State will be condemned no matter what it does and how it does it. Then why bother?
Israel should reconsider its policy toward Hamas. It should stop sacrificing a long-term permanent solution for the seeming convenience of disrupted short term hudnas (truces). A Whack them and finish approach may be costly in the short term, but it will pay off handily in the long term. It’s a fruit-bearing investment.
It’s what the Israeli citizens living around Gaza are demanding.
Since the Iranian revolution in 1979 and the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini’s ascent to power, the Islamic fanatic regime in Iran has been hallucinating about wiping Israel off the map. The effort this regime has been investing in acquiring nuclear power status has only reinforced the idea expressed in the daily declarations driven by their religiously sanctified dictate. It offers more credibility to their genocidal intentions.
They meant what they said; it has not been an empty forewarning.
There is no doubt, Iran poses a grave threat to the Jewish State, but this menace — thanks to the formidable might of the Israeli Defense Force (IDF)—does not prevent Israeli citizens from carrying on with their daily routines, and assume normal life activities.
Unfortunately, there is a greater threat. It is relatively unremarkable at the moment, but it keeps on inching and worming forward, and once there, it would wreak catastrophic consequences on the Jewish State. This looming jeopardy could potentially become the greatest existential threat Israel has ever faced.
This greater threat is the growing clout and influence of the Far-Left movement within the Democratic Party in the US. The recent shocking upset of Octazio-Cortez’s victory in the New York Democratic Party Primary election over House Democrat Joe Crowley, has only served to underscore that fact. Ms. Cortez has been a devout supporter of Bernie Sanders, another self-hating Jew, and she has already made clear where her heart goes home for the night by voicing her negative opinion of Israel and her support for the Palestinian Arab cause.
What’s more, voices and influence of BDS and the many anti-Israel and anti-Semitic movements on campuses all over the US have been rising, and the anti-Trump crusade has been getting louder and louder as the Democratic Party’s shift to the far-left gains persistent momentum.
Left-leaning ideology is an ideology obsessed with rooting for the underdog, the poor, the deprived, the loser whether his cause is just or not. As a rule, the flag bearers of this standpoint are quite aggressive—even to the point of turning violent—in their quest for saving the world from its "villains". They represent David against Goliath, Don Quixote against the windmills—or so they believe.
It is true that the state of Israel used to be a favorite among many left leaning personalities until it won the Six-Day War in 1967. That war changed the geography of the Middle East. Israel’s, unexpected, but magnificent triumph, over several, better-equipped Arab enemies, transformed her image from the underdog to the "occupier".
All of a sudden, the notion of an Arab Palestine, which had never existed, took the smallest community of the huge Arab nation and turned it into a self-declared nation. By concentrating on the Palestinian Arabs alone, a splinter set of Goliath’s teeth, a former aggressor turned loser became a favorite of the left, while the winner, the former underdog, the David, became the villain—It had won and therefore it was no longer the smaller fry.
Many American Jews dwell on Jewish history of persecution, of being placed at the bottom of the pecking order, of being the perpetual underdog. Naturally, they vote for democrats on Election Day; they support civil rights movements; they stir to the front row when defending ethnic minorities like African Americans, Hispanics, or even illegal immigrants, and they criticize the state of Israel’s attempts to defend itself against terror inflicted by the so-called Palestinian “underdogs”.
Being far-left has become equivalent to being anti-Israel. Consequently, American Jews are abandoning Israel en masse. The present anti-Trump sentiment may help the Democrats capture a Congressional seats if not a majority in the next November elections. Trump may even become a single-term president at the conclusion of the 2020 elections; he may be replaced by a Bernie Sanders-type and an administration hostile to Israel.
The unfortunate blind spot that many far-left Jews fail to grasp is the fact that once these underdogs gain power, they turn against those same Jews who helped elevate their status from the deprived loser to a respected and equal being.
These far-left Jews fail to comprehend the simple fact that their anti-Israel stand combined with their support for eternal losers may backfire; they fail to realize that equating “Good” with the underdogs and the losers, “Evil” with the successful and the winners, is not always proper. Losers, in most cases, and especially when referring to the Palestinians, have brought the misery upon themselves through their own actions, and the successful, especially the State of Israel, more often than not, have worked hard and legitimately before attaining their status. Of course, there are cases to the contrary, nevertheless, profiling by picking “good” and “evil” based on “poor” and “successful” respectively, is ironic, wrong and improper.
Can you imagine an American support or even an initiative for an anti-Israel resolution in the UN Security Council? Can you imagine a denial of financial aid, a denial of military support, or even a pro-BDS agenda exercised by a future US government?
Can Israel, as we know it today, even exist in the face of a far-left hostile American leadership?
Something must be done, and soon, if Israel is to avoid such a scenario. Israel must launch a massive campaign intended to make sure that the American public and especially American Jews take into account the fate of Israel when they step inside the voting booth next November and the following Novembers in years to come.
If Israel’s existence is important to you, the American voter, take it into account when you consider voting for your political candidate in the coming elections.
Israel’s disastrous mistake
The Israeli government’s latest decision—concerning the cancellation of the western wall agreement, closing the current egalitarian section at its southern end, and the controversial legislation on conversion, preventing a sizable block of Jew-wannabees from joining the faith, is a fateful mistake that has generational implications. It is a serious blind spot characteristic of the Jewish religion (when it lets itself be monopolized by its extreme orthodox faction), which contributed, throughout history, to its minority status and isolation in a world filled with anti-Semites and Israel bashers.
Years ago, I discussed Religion with a colleague of mine, a devout Christian. I asked him to elaborate on the key difference between Christianity and Judaism. My colleague was well schooled on the topic. He immediately dived into the teachings of Jesus and the issue of his acceptance (or rejection by Jews) including the associated rewards in the afterlife.
“I don’t think that this is the key difference.” I interrupted. My colleague looked confounded. He believed he had made a bullet-proof case. How could I dismiss it so bluntly?
“The real difference is,” I stated, “Marketing.”
“Marketing”? He did not get it.
“Christians believed in proselytism,” I claimed. “Christians were able to become a world’s major religion by marketing their faith quite rigorously, persuading people to come and join them. They did so by catering to people’s longing for a better life, if not on Earth, then in Heaven. This “Marketing” strategy was very successful,” I claimed. “Islam, in contrast, used violence and intimidation, forcing people to join their faith,” I added. Then, too, Islam became a major world religion. “But, Jews, on the other hand, made it extremely difficult for any gentile-born individual to join their faith.” I paused, watching the assenting expression on my colleague’s face, then continued. “Judaism turned into a minority faith. Consequently, Jews were pushed-around, terrorized, murdered, shoved down to the bottom of the pecking order by followers of the other major religions.”
Israel needs friends. Israel needs supporters. In a world where anti-Semites, Iranians and Arabs from across the Middle East seek to wipe it off the map, Israel cannot afford becoming isolated. Friendly democratic governments are elected by people whose hearts beat to the rhythm of the Israeli drums.
Can you imagine having Judaism as one of the world’s major religions? Can you imagine having a world comprising 1.6 Billion Jews rather than 16 Million, a majority of whom not only would have supported the Jewish state, but would have considered it as part of their heritage? Could you fancy how anti-Semitic movements would have been pushed down the peck and stepped on? Could you picture the power derived by this vision?
However, the latest decision by the Israeli government is painting a picture, which does the opposite. It excludes and alienates diaspora Jews or more than half of the already small Jewish population; it also further obstructs and prevents other non-Jews from joining the team—our team, leading to further weakening of the Jewish state and its world-wide’s support.
The Israeli government must be aware that letting a minority sect of orthodox religious extremists paint the entire Jewish state in their black colors will only bring about disastrous consequences to the future of Israel.
Please Bibi, do not let it happen. Reconsider your government’s latest decisions, then change them.
February 14th, 2016
Bernie Sanders, The Losers' Champion
Bernie Sanders, The 74-year-old American Jewish Socialist has rocketed to the top of the pecking list among all US presidential contenders aspiring for the job of Commander in Chief and Leader of the Free World. Emerging from obscurity, he was able to inspire the young generation, the economically deprived, women, minorities, and more. His rise to the top was as astonishing as it has been worrisome. His seeming honesty, unhappiness with the status quo, calls for a social and political revolution and idealism have captured the imagination of many potential voters and propelled him to mind-blowing approval ratings. He could become the next president of the US, and once he does, the hot-air balloon behind his rhetoric will pop, and the dream will shatter as reality will strike. “Philosopher” Mike Tyson, former world-boxing champion, put it best: “Everyone has a plan till they get punched in the face…”. And Sanders and his supporters will undoubtedly experience that exact fate. Their grandiose plans will be crashed by the reality of a badly divided country with a potentially GOP-controlled Congress and many GOP-controlled state governments.
One of Sanders’s “strong” points, when comparing himself to Hillary Clinton, is his objection to the Iraq War before it was launched. (Sanders, incorrectly, pronounces it I Raq—an indication of ignorance when it comes to world geography and culture, since the proper name is pronounced: Ee-Raq). Although, in hindsight, the Iraq war turned out a mistake, it was not because Sanders was right to object to it in face the available intelligence. The evidence-based intelligence for going to war was convincingly presented to the world by the respectable Secretary of State, Colin Powell; it was backed by the British intelligence, by the Israeli intelligence, by the American intelligence and by Saddam Hussein’s demeanor that reinforced it.
The Iraq War was launched not because of bad judgment by the Bush Administration, but rather due to faulty intelligence. Had the intelligence been proven genuine, the Iraq War would have been fully justified. And President Bush (as well as Hillary Clinton) support for the war would have been the correct decision, while Sanders would have been wrong to vote against it. In justifying his decision, Sanders claims that he did not believe Bush and Cheney. I guess he would not have believed any other intelligence source, had the intelligence been in conflict with his wishful but flawed view of reality.
Bernie’s decision to vote against going to war with Iraq is worrisome because he is consistent. He would probably vote against using all means, including the military option, to stop Iran’s nuclear ambitions, should the Ayatollah violate the recent agreement he signed with the P5+1, and resume his charge toward the bomb.
In a recent Democratic debate, Sanders mocked Hillary Clinton for taking advice from former National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger. He blamed Kissinger for the current economic difficulties, where jobs have been leaving the US on route to China. In other words, In Sanders’s view, the normalization of relationships with China was a mistake. And Kissinger is at fault; his judgment is flawed; and he, Sanders, unlike Hillary, would not take unsound advice from a shoddy source…
Sanders’s logic is “impressive”. His criticism of Kissinger’s opening of China amounts to condemning scientific achievements like the internet because some people use it to sell porn, denouncing the use of airplanes because they brought about hijacking, disapproving of cars because of some bad or drunken drivers.
Sanders’s war on Wall Street is another key ingredient in his agenda. Once he becomes president, he would impose high taxes on speculations. The question remains, how does one define speculations? Do Mutual fund managers speculate when manipulating their portfolios? And if they do, then how would taxing those transactions benefit the working Middle-Class who depend on their 401K investment for their retirement? How does it benefit the working Middle-Class who move between investments inside their 401K. Are they considered part of Wall Street manipulators? Are they going to be taxed by Bernie?
But the most objectionable piece to Sanders’s agenda is his promises for free college education, Medicare for all, and several other socialistic ideas. It all sounds great, and other countries proved that these ideas are implementable— -- --in their countries. Problem is, the US is different. These great goodies cannot be realized in a country where the president powers are constrained by Congress, especially when Congress is under the majority control of the opposition. A US president assumes much more freedom of operations when it comes to foreign policy, but when it comes to domestic policy (Sanders’s core appeal), his/her hands are tied when Congress, and many state governors refuse to cooperate. And resistance may not be rooted in ideology alone. It may score Sanders’s budgetary math a failing grade, simply because the numbers he proposes do not add up.
It’s no wonder so many young people find Sanders exciting, refreshing and fascinating. For these naïve and inexperienced individuals he is like a gorgeous lady with a shiny tank top and purplish high heels, walking slowly in a demonstrative mode, while guys driving by crash their cars into things. Or, in other words, Bernie is like a man who tells a woman she's beautiful so she'd overlook most of his other lies. And since most people in this world are as sophisticated as Sara Palin or one of her fans, it is only a matter of time before the American people will elect another unfit politician to lead the free world into one more misfortune, as it has already come to pass time and again.
December 21st, 2015
Strange, but if Clinton is right than Trump’s position is spot-on
It happened during the latest Democratic Presidential Debate. Hillary Clinton professed that ISIS was using videos of Donald Trump as recruiting tool. If true; if Trump’s video performances are an effective recruiting tool for ISIS; if amiable Muslims can be transformed from peace-loving folks into vicious killers by the words of one loud celebrity; if Muslims, world-wide, are like gasoline lying in wait for a lit match, then this is a worrisome phenomenon we all have to take into account, when confronting an unfamiliar Muslim, the only information we have about whom is his/her religious affiliation.
In a strange way, if Hillary’s claims are right, than Trump’s position, banning Muslims from entering the US, is spot-on. If so many Muslims can be transformed effortlessly into ISIS murderers, or even just sympathizers, than even in the absence of Trump’s videos, these people may, very well, be readily radicalized at some point by someone or something else. These Muslims may be dangerous, and they should be treated with suspicion.
As of this writing, Hillary Clinton’s assertions have not been proven true. As far as we know, ISIS has not, or has not yet, employed Trump’s videos in their recruiting efforts. Does that mean that Clinton’s conclusion was erroneous, or even deceptive? Does that fact imply that Trump went too far, that he was wrong when demanding a ban on Muslims’ entry to the US? Can we infer from that lack of evidence that Trump’s positions are not and will not be used for radicalizing Muslims?
No. Of course not!
Hillary Clinton believes that Muslims are being radicalized and indoctrinated with hate toward the West by being schooled on the ideas that Americans, Europeans and Jews in particular are the arch enemies of Islam; she believes that Trump’s statements serve to reinforce these (what she believes to be) false allegations. Consequently, even though ISIS has not (or has not yet) employed Trump’s videos in their recruiting efforts, these videos have the potential of becoming unofficial recruiting tools by individuals who become self-radicalized by reading mind-poisoning material, watching sickening videos and/or having discussions with other ISIS sympathizers. And Trump’s statements offer potentially hot-stuff inside this recruiting category.
In conclusion, by criticizing Trump, Hillary Clinton has let us in on her beliefs concerning Muslims. She has told us that many ISIS recruits are Muslims who can easily become radicalized by anti-Muslim rhetoric. Although she did not specify it, she singled out Muslims (she did not believe that Christians or Jews share the same psyche). She has shared Trump’s beliefs and suspicions while failing to recognize it.
Don’t we all?