During a well-publicized interview in 2002, Samantha Power reflected on the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians. She advocated a diversion of funds committed by the US Administration to Israel—for its defense needs—to the Palestinian Authority. She called for a US military intervention aimed at imposing a solution on the Palestinian question. She appeared to portray the Palestinians as victims of Israeli oppression.
In a radio interview in 2008, she doubled down on her extreme leftist’s views, responding to a question by complaining that "So much of it is about: 'Is he going to be good for the Jews?"
In a 2011 interview with Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, she seemed to have changed course. Boteach reported that “Samantha Power seemed genuinely and deeply pained by the perception that she was not a friend of Israel.” She rationalized her 2002 comments by explaining that she was asked to respond to a “thought experiment”, a trick question— “what she would advise an American president if it seemed that either party in the Palestinian-Israeli conflict were moving toward genocide”—and that she stumbled, nose-diving into that trap. Had she had more media experience, she should not have responded. She alluded to the fact that her words were taken out of full context.
Given the multi-colored picture painted above, the question of whether or not Ms. Power’s new appointment is “good for the Jews” is not a trivial one. Still, the answer, in my opinion, is fairly obvious. Samantha Power’s earlier views concerning Israel will not be pertinent to her job in the UN.
Here is why.
The UN ambassador is merely a messenger. He or she serves at the pleasure of the president of the US. Although ambassadors write their own speeches, they follow talking points consistent with US policy determined by the president.
Regardless of their brilliance or points-made, speeches in the UN do not sway opinions. All ambassadors follow voting choices inspired and determined by their bosses, the top leaders, the true policy makers in their country. Ethics and justice are as dead as Latin. Politics and venal national interests rule the roost in the UN.
Samantha Power will follow directions, passed on to her by President Obama when it comes to voting choices and dealings with other diplomats, regardless of her personal preferences or emotional brainwaves.
And when it comes to the president, we have witnessed a dramatic evolution in his attitude toward the Jewish state in general, and concerning the Israeli-Palestinian conflict in particular. When President Obama took office in 2009 he believed that Israel was at fault for the unending stalemate in the “Peace Process”; he believed that the Arab countries and Iran could be won over by his show of respect and admiration to the Muslim world. By 2013, he appears to have learned a lesson. He understands the reality of the situation. He does not merely say that he is a true supporter of the Jewish state; he delivers, and he does so with unprecedented military and intelligence cooperation, significant financial support, perseverance before an extensive anti-Israel lobbying consensus in the UN Security Council, while employing the US Veto power time and again to stop bullying the Jewish State.
But above all, we must remind ourselves that leaders go through a life changing reality check once they assume power. On their campaign trail, or while in the political Opposition Party, they stick to popular ideals; they advocate solutions that make their supporters and potential voters feel good. They do so with no consideration or understanding of political, economic and national security constraints. It’s easy and trendy when the buck stops somewhere else.
Samantha Power was not representing her country when she was making her unfortunate remarks. She could afford articulating “shoot from the hip” ideals as advocated repeatedly by the extreme left; she represented no one else but herself. When, all at once, her words and actions might stand for her country, her boss rather than her own naive ideologies, she would become increasingly more responsible, more self-scrutinizing, more educated about the actual realities of the Middle East.
I would not lose sleep, not even for a moment, as a consequence of Samantha Power’s elevation to the job of the next US ambassador to the UN.
Avi Perry is the author of “72 Virgins”—a popular thriller about a countdown to a terror attack on US soil. He is currently a talk show host at Paltalk News Network (PNN). He served as an intelligence expert for the Israeli government and was a professor at Northwestern University. He was a VP at NMS Communications, a Bell Laboratories distinguished staff member and manager, and a delegate of the US and Lucent Technologies to UN International Standards body. He is also the author of “Fundamentals of Voice Quality Engineering in Wireless Networks.” For more information, visit www.aviperry.org.
Slowly but surely Islam has been gaining ground in America. New York City is caving in to Muslims' demands for building a Grand Mosque next to Ground Zero—The Cordoba House. Building mosques on sacred grounds is what Islam has always done by asserting its supremacy. Throughout history and starting with Muhammad, Muslims converted other defeated religions’ places of worship into mosques. They transformed that particular practice into a tradition by letting their defeated enemies digest the fact that Islam had supplanted their former religion and their former culture. This practice began with the pagan pantheon of the Ka'aba, in Mecca, then continued with thousands of churches and synagogues. One of the earliest and most famous examples was in Damascus, where in the year 705, Umayyad caliph Abd al-Malik took the church of St. John from the Christians and had it rebuilt as a mosque, which is now known as Umayyad Mosque. In 1453, they converted the famous Hagia Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople into a mosque, immediately after capturing the city and changing its name to Istanbul. To make the buildings fit for a mosque, the Turks destroyed the icons, plundering their precious plating in the process, and defaced the frescoes.
Perhaps one of the most outrageous acts of hubris took place in Jerusalem where Caliph Umar laid the foundation for two mosques—Al-Aqsa and Dome of the Rock—on the Temple Mount, the most sacred site in Judaism. This particular location is the place of the ancient Jewish temple, a place falsely claimed by the Muslims as their pre-historic capital (although it has never been mentioned in the Qur'an).
And now, the City Council issued a resolution calling for the school system to observe two Muslim holidays. The excuse—the council, in its resolution, cited statistics from a Muslim source claiming that there are about 12 percent Muslim students in the New York City public schools.
Aside from the fact that a non-Muslim body should verify this statistics, this new development is alarming, yet not unforeseen. Islam has not abandoned its call for Jihad. It only expanded the approach. Instead of resorting to a single strategy, made evident by the prophet Muhammad and practiced by Bin Laden, Islam has adopted a stealth form of Jihad to go side by side with the violent adaptation.
It is no secret that Muslims count on stealth Jihad to accomplish what they are unable to realize by way of violence. Muammar Gaddafi, Libya's ruler once clarified it. He said, "There are signs that Allah will grant victory to Islam without swords, without guns, without conquest. What he referred to was the alarming statistics showing that Europe will grow to be an Islamic land by 2050 if current trends of Muslim immigration and Muslim birthrate persist. It's a fact that in today's Europe (depending on the particular country or region) 30% to 50% of newborns are Muslims. In Canada, Islam is the fastest growing religion, and in the US, projections confirm that by 2050 there will be 50 million Muslims—all American citizens.
Islam is a bigger threat than Nazism. Both are supremacists, totalitarian, endorse violence. Islam makes no secret of its desire to Islamize and dominate the world, impose Sharia Law, exterminate the Jews. But unlike Nazism, Islam is wrapped in cotton wool—the guise of religion. Without the shield of religion to hide behind, Islam would be banned in the civilized world since it is a political ideology of hate, just like Nazism. But Islamo-Nazis have recruited the political left in Western countries to their Jihad. They employ these useful idiots to advocate freedom of religion, freedom of speech and diversity as an excuse for Islamization. Islam rejects America's values, including freedom and diversity; it despises America, while at the same time it makes use of the American constitution and its democratic institutions in an effort to advance its stealth Jihad. This is what Hitler pulled off in Germany. He exploited Democracy in his push to capture command of the government, and once in charge, he abolished Democracy, freedom, individual security, while installing his dictatorship and sick ideology. Islam is no different.
Warning signs have been surrounding us from every corner. This latest attempt by Muslims in New York to add Islamic holidays to the school calendar is a merely stealth, sneaky move designed to make Islam a major American religion on its way to dominance.
I must come clean here by pointing out that Mayor Bloomberg came out against this idea. His rationale bordered on political correctness. He did not attack Islam by claiming that it is a political ideology of hate, but rather explained that the school year is already too short, and if every religion demands that all New Yorkers celebrate every religious holiday of every religious group, the school year will turn out even shorter. The mayor may not have the final word, though. All of us, freedom loving Americans must be aware of the Islamic threat to take over the world. We must support the mayor. This new wave of Islamization in America must be stopped.