Archive for the ‘Jewish state’ category

The Left vs Israel

June 1, 2016

The Left vs Israel, Israel Hayom, Daniel Pipes, June 1, 2016

Since the creation of Israel, Palestinians, Arabs, and Muslims have been the mainstay of anti-‎Zionism, with the Left, from the Soviet Union to professors of literature, their auxiliary. But this ‎might be in process of change: As Muslims slowly, grudgingly, and unevenly come to accept the ‎Jewish state as a reality, the Left is becoming increasingly vociferous and obsessive in its ‎rejection of Israel.‎

Much evidence points in this direction: Polls in the Middle East find cracks in the opposition to ‎Israel while a major American survey for the first time shows liberal Democrats to be more anti-‎Israel than pro-Israel. The Saudi and Egyptian governments have real security relations with ‎Israel while a figure like (the Jewish) Bernie Sanders declares that “to the degree that [Israelis] ‎want us to have a positive relationship, I think they’re going to have to improve their relationship ‎with the Palestinians.”‎

But I should like to focus on a small illustrative example from a United Nations institution: The ‎World Health Organization churned out report A69/B/CONF./1 on May 24 with the enticing ‎title, “Health conditions in the occupied Palestinian territory, including east Jerusalem, and in the ‎occupied Syrian Golan: Draft decision proposed by the delegation of Kuwait, on behalf of the ‎Arab Group, and Palestine.”‎

The three-page document calls for “a field assessment conducted by the World Health ‎Organization,” with special focus on such topics as “incidents of delay or denial of ambulance ‎service” and “access to adequate health services on the part of Palestinian prisoners.” Of course, ‎the entire document singles out Israel as a denier of unimpeded access to health care.‎

This ranks as a special absurdity given the WHO’s hiring a consultant in next-door Syria who is ‎connected to the very pinnacle of the Assad regime, even as it perpetrates atrocities estimated at ‎a half million dead and 12 million displaced (out of a total prewar population of 22 million). ‎Conversely, both the wife and brother-in-law of Mahmoud Abbas, leader of the Palestinian ‎Authority, whose status and wealth assures them treatment anywhere in the world, chose to be ‎treated in Israeli hospitals, as did the sister, daughter, and granddaughter of Ismail Haniyeh, the ‎Hamas leader in Gaza, Israel’s sworn enemy.‎

Despite these facts, the WHO voted on May 28 to accept the proposed field assessment with the ‎predictably lopsided outcome of 107 votes in favor, eight votes against, eight abstentions and 58 ‎absences. So far, all this is tediously routine.‎

But the composition of those voting blocs renders the decision noteworthy. Votes in favor ‎included every state in Europe except two, Bosnia-Herzegovina (which has a half-Muslim ‎population) and San Marino (total population: 33,000), both of which missed the vote for reasons ‎unknown to me.‎

To repeat: Every other European government than those two supported a biased field assessment ‎with its inevitable condemnation of Israel. To be specific, this included the authorities ruling in ‎Albania, Andorra, Austria, Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, ‎Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, ‎Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malta, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Netherlands, ‎Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, ‎Switzerland, and the United Kingdom.‎

Making this European near-unanimity the more remarkable were the many absented governments ‎with large- to overwhelming-majority-Muslim populations: Burkina Faso, Chad, ‎Eritrea, Ethiopia, Gabon, Gambia, Ivory Coast, Kyrgyzstan, Libya, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Sudan, ‎Tajikistan, Tanzania, Togo, and Turkmenistan.‎

So, Iceland (with effectively no Muslims) voted for the amendment and against Israel while ‎Turkmenistan (which is over 90% Muslim) did not. Cyprus and Greece, which have critical ‎new relations with Israel, voted against Israel while the historically hostile Libyans missed the ‎vote. Germany, with its malignant history, voted against Israel while Tajikistan, a partner of the ‎Iranian regime’s, was absent. Denmark, with its noble history, voted against Israel while Sudan, ‎led by an Islamist, did not.‎

This unlikely pattern suggests that monolithic Muslim hostility is cracking while Europeans, who ‎are overwhelmingly on the Left, to the point that even right-wing parties pursue watered-down ‎left-wing policies, increasingly despise Israel. Worse, even those who do not share this attitude ‎go along with it, even in an obscure WHO vote.‎

Muslims, not leftists, still staff almost all the violent attacks on Israel; and Islamism, not ‎socialism, remains the reigning anti-Zionist ideology. But these changes point to Israel’s cooling ‎relations with the West and warming ones in its neighborhood.‎

That Kissinger Promise and Obama’s Fulfillment

May 30, 2016

That Kissinger Promise and Obama’s Fulfillment, The Jewish PressVic Rosenthal, May 30, 2016

Obama-Kissinger-e1464550543436Pres. Obama seated with Henry Kissinger

{Originally posted to the author’s website, Abu Yehuda}

Old realpolitiker Henry Kissinger was in the news recently when he sat down with Donald Trump, to give him the benefit of his experience. It brought to mind Kissinger’s numerous attempts to get Israel out of the territories it conquered in 1967, before, during and – especially – after the Yom Kippur War.

Kissinger went to Iraq in December of 1975 to try to wean the regime away from the Soviet Union and improve relations with the US. In a discussion with Sa’dun Hammadi, the Iraqi Foreign Minister, Kissinger suggested that American support for Israel was a result of Jewish political and financial power, promised that the US would work to force Israel back to pre-1967 boundaries, and indicated that while the US would not support the elimination of Israel, he believed that its existence was only temporary. Here is an excerpt (the whole thing is worth reading):

I think, when we look at history, that when Israel was created in 1948, I don’t think anyone understood it. It originated in American domestic politics. It was far away and little understood. So it was not an American design to get a bastion of imperialism in the area. It was much less complicated. And I would say that until 1973, the Jewish community had enormous influence. It is only in the last two years, as a result of the policy we are pursuing, that it has changed.

We don’t need Israel for influence in the Arab world. On the contrary, Israel does us more harm than good in the Arab world. You yourself said your objection to us is Israel. Except maybe that we are capitalists. We can’t negotiate about the existence of Israel, but we can reduce its size to historical proportions. I don’t agree that Israel is a permanent threat. How can a nation of three million be a permanent threat? They have a technical advantage now. But it is inconceivable that peoples with wealth and skill and the tradition of the Arabs won’t develop the capacity that is needed. So I think in ten to fifteen years, Israel will be like Lebanon—struggling for existence, with no influence in the Arab world.  [my emphasis] …

Kissinger also promised that aid to Israel, which he presented as a result of Jewish political influence, would be significantly reduced. He indicated that legal changes in the US – he must have been referring to the creation of the Federal Electoral Commission in 1974 to regulate campaign contributions – would attenuate Jewish power and therefore American support for Israel. Naturally, he didn’t foresee the Israel-Egypt peace agreement, which permanently established a high level of military aid to both countries.

He further promised that the US would support a PLO-run Palestinian state if the PLO would accept UNSC resolution 242 and recognize Israel. This of course is what (supposedly) happened in the Oslo accords.

Kissinger insisted that “No one is in favor of Israel’s destruction—I won’t mislead you—nor am I.” But his hint that a smaller Israel might not survive is clear. Surely he understood that a pre-1967-sized Israel (within what Eban called “Auschwitz lines”) would have no chance of surviving, simply because of the strategic geography of the area.

Kissinger was wrong about the Arabs developing the capability to challenge Israel, but their place has been taken by soon-to-be-nuclear Iran and its proxies, who are significantly more dangerous than the Arab states ever were.

US policy, however, has kept more or less the same shape, except that the hypocrisy of insisting that the US supports the existence of Israel but in a pre-1967 size is even more glaring. The substitution of the PLO for the Arab states as the desired recipient of the land to be taken from Israel has barely made a ripple either in America or among the Arabs, suggesting that the policy is more about Israel giving up land than about the Arabs getting it.

The original motivation for Kissinger’s promises was supposedly the desire of the US to replace the Soviet Union as the patron of the Arab states. After the collapse of the USSR and the end of the Cold War in 1991, however, there was no change in policy. Although the Oslo Accords were initiated by left-wing Israelis, the US eagerly embraced them, and the so-called ‘peace process’ became a permanent stick to beat Israel with.

President Obama is especially adept at emphasizing support for Israel’s existence while at the same time demanding that Israel make concessions that would make her continued existence impossible. Apparently agreeing with Kissinger about Jewish power, Obama has worked to reduce the pro-Israel influence of American Jews in numerous ways, such as by providing access to the White House for groups like J Street and the Israel Policy Forum, while marginalizing traditional Zionist organizations like ZOA.

Kissinger’s almost anti-Semitic claim that US support for Israel is bought with Jewish money was probably untrue in 1975 and is even less so today, when a large proportion of American Jews, including wealthy ones, have chosen their liberal or progressive politics over Zionism. The coming struggle over the introduction of a pro-Palestinian plank into the Democratic platform is an indication that the party and with it, many of its Jewish supporters, is moving toward Obama’s position.

The Obama Administration’s program to extricate itself from the Middle East by empowering Iran as the new regional power has given a new impetus to the policy of shrinking Israel. Iran sees Israel as a major obstacle to its hegemony, for both geopolitical and religious/ideological reasons, and is committed to eliminating the Jewish state. Obama found it necessary to restrain Israel from bombing Iran’s nuclear facilities at least once (in 2012), and seems to be prepared to sacrifice Israel in order to achieve his goal of establishing Iranian regional dominance.

Some would go even further and say that Obama’s primary ideological goal is to eliminate Israel and the Iranian gambit is a means to this end, but that is highly speculative! Or maybe it’s a matter of two birds with one stone.

Henry Kissinger didn’t do us any favors, but I think the anti-Israel thread in American policy would have been strong enough without him, running from Truman’s Secretary of State George C. Marshall all the way to Obama’s stable of anti-Zionists like Rob Malley and Ben Rhodes.

Today Israel is long gone from the Sinai, more recently from Gaza, and probably only thanks to the disintegration of Syria, still holding the Golan Heights. I would like to believe that PM Netanyahu was correct when he said that Israel will never leave the Golan. Regarding Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem, I expect that we are about to begin a very difficult time, as the Obama Administration is likely to mount a campaign in its last days to fulfill Kissinger’s promise to the Arabs at long last.

Israel and the Palestinians: What the media won’t report

May 29, 2016

Israel and the Palestinians: What the media won’t report, Gatestone Institute via YouTube, May 28, 2016

Op-Ed: Trump’s “peace through strength” for USA also applies to Israel

May 8, 2016

Op-Ed: Trump’s “peace through strength” for USA also applies to Israel, Israel National News, Ted Belman, May 8, 2016

(A problem with “make them an offer they will refuse” is that they may accept it, make more demands and then renege on the original deal. History suggests that such an outcome is more likely than not. Israel would then be more endangered than if the offer had not been made. As the author suggests, Israel is not likely to survive a “two state solution” and peace through strength is the only viable solution.– DM)

The next American president may decide to dictate a solution, pressure Israel as the only party that can be pressured, and an Israeli response that is responsive and defensive could lose the day.

A recent article titled Time for an Israeli strategy for the next American administration, galvanized me to write a response. I did not agree with the strategy set out and normally would not have made mention of the article except that it was written by Eric Mandel.

Not only is he the director of MEPIN™ which is read by members of Congress, their foreign policy advisers, members of the Knesset, and journalists, he is also the Northeast Co-Chair of StandWithUs, an international organization dedicated to educating the public about Israel, while fighting the BDS movement. His views and policy prescriptions should not be ignored.

He argues that “Israel must begin to think differently, actively show that it is trying to be the partner for peace, and demonstrate that it will manage the situation instead just playing defense.” I believe that Israel is just doing that. Netanyahu always says that he is ready for negotiations without pre-conditions and Naftali Bennett is pushing for an improvement to the economic conditions for both Arab Israelis and Arabs in Judea and Samaria. Mandel thinks they aren’t doing enough.

He fears that pressure will build on Israel to make moves toward peace. He argues that Israel should take the initiative for peace rather than to be resistant to it.

Better judgment is needed going forward, and the excuse that Bibi must manage his fragile 61-seat coalition by placating the hard right doesn’t cut it anymore. Israel, for the foreseeable future, needs America diplomatic and security support.

The next American president may decide to dictate a solution, pressure Israel as the only party that can be pressured, and an Israeli response that is responsive and defensive could lose the day.

He is too much of a defeatist for me. He obviously believes in the two-state solution, no matter what the arguments against it, are.

ut to be fair to him, he has a clear-eyed view of what Israel is up against.

If the next president is a Democrat, you will hear growing calls for a balanced “even-handed” approach to the Israel-Palestinian conflict. The Bernie Sanders Democrats are on the ascendancy, and will be casting a large shadow on the party for the next generation.

In today’s progressive parlance, even-handed does not necessarily mean support for two states for two peoples.

Rather, it means to many of the “Palestinian Lives Matter” Democrats, two Palestinian states – one in what now comprises Israel within the 1949 armistice line, and one in the West Bank and Gaza. Too many well-meaning people have been hijacked by the BDS movement, being misled into believing that if Israel just left the West Bank, peace would break out. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

He recommends that Israel, “Take to the offensive, put some plans down on the table as soon as there is a new administration, work with them, and then actively manage the situation and expectations.” One can’t argue with this except that he suggests the wrong plans to be put forward.

Some ideas: Announce a readiness for an Israeli settlement freeze beyond the land swap areas (6%) in exchange for Palestinian, Arab League, UN recognition of a Jewish State as envisioned by UNGA Resolution 181, the end of the (Arab) right of return, and acceptance of a totally demilitarized Judea and Samaria. Offer conditional recognition of a Palestinian state for a signed end of conflict agreement.

Consider convening an Israeli summit of the nation’s security and military leaders, past and present, to discuss the maximum land offer to the Palestinians that won’t endanger Israeli security interests. Put Bogie Ya’alon in charge, as he is one of the very few members of the government respected by much of the opposition. Other than the Jordan River Valley and the settlement blocs, there is much to discuss that would not endanger Israel.

There is nothing new in suggesting that we offer a settlement freeze outside the settlement blocs. My opposition to doing so is that even if the quid quo pro is that the world accepts our building in the blocs, we would end up holding the rest of the land on trust for the Palestinians should they ever decide to take it. But in exchange for this offer, he wants recognition as a Jewish state by Palestinians, Arab League and the UN. He also wants them to recognize that the area will be demilitarized and that there will be no refugee return to Israel. He knows that these demands won’t be accepted but thinks there is value in making the offer.

I disagree. Time, and again, Israel makes offers subject to caveats, only to find out that the world accepts the offerings and ignores the caveats. For example, Netanyahu, under great pressure, offered a two states for two peoples, solution providing the Palestinian state be demilitarized and Israel be recognized as a Jewish state. Not only did Obama minimize the demilitarization to a few years only but he ignored R 242 and called for a solution based on ’67 lines. The upcoming French resolution will offer even less to Israel.

Far better to work to convince the next US administration, especially one led by Trump, to abandon the Two State Solution (TSS) for something more workable and equitable (in Israel’s eyes) and which will bring us closer to peace. Trump is now embracing Reagan’s policy of peace through strength. Time to apply the same policy to the Israel/Arab conflict and support and strengthen Israel to achieve peace.

As for the basket case of Hamas’ Gaza, offer a seaport in exchange for demilitarization with acceptance of all previous agreements. It won’t happen, but it may smooth the way for the Turkish-Israeli rapprochement that both nations need and want.

Nothing new here. Israel would gladly lift the blockade, not just allow a sea port, in exchange for these things. Turkey is demanding a seaport without these things. Israel should not capitulate to Turkey without them.

He is realistic enough to say:

These conciliatory steps are all conditional; nothing will be given up if the Palestinians remain intransigent or if Israeli security is seen to be compromised.

The Palestinian Authority in all likelihood would not accept any of this, but that is not the point. The goal is to change the dynamic going forward, putting Israel on the diplomatic offensive to blunt the pro-BDS movement, and create a situation for an improved relationship with the American people, who do not understand why Israel is building in communities in the West Bank. America should simultaneously pressure the Gulf Cooperation Council to move towards a more public relationship with Israel, as Jordan, Egypt, Turkey and Morocco now have.

The diplomatic offensive he calls for, is basically to convince the world that we are ready to capitulate. The American people don’t need convincing of the rightness of our cause and conduct.. 70% of them support Israel, many of whom want Israel to retain Judea and Samaria.

Better still, we should mount a diplomatic offensive to convince the world that the TSS is not a prescription for peace, that Israel has the only right to Judea and Samaria, that the Arabs and the BDS movement they finance, want the destruction of Israel not the creation of a Palestinian state and for a lasting peace Israel must remain in control of J&S forever.

He wants to convince America that Israel is making “painful compromises for a lasting peace”. The problem is that the more painful the compromises, the less lasting the peace.

What We Could Learn from Israel

March 24, 2016

What We Could Learn from Israel, Gatestone InstituteVijeta Uniyal, March 24, 2016

♦ To become a successful nation, India realizes that we have to emulate the Jewish quest for spiritual and worldly learning. We need a nation of empowered men and women, free and fearless to develop social, technological, entrepreneurial and humanitarian creativity, even while under constant attack.

♦ When we see the restoration of Jewish State and revival of Judaism in its ancient lands, we Hindus see ourselves. If Judaism is incomplete without the Jewish homeland, the essence of Hinduism is indivisible with the geography of India. Just as Jews were forced out and in exile for millennia, Hindus too suffered a millennium of Islamic and later European subjugation in their own homeland.

♦ Recent terrorist attacks in Brussels, Mumbai, Paris, Istanbul and Ankara are simply what Israel has been living with for decades — and India, France, Belgium and Turkey do not have “settlements.” The conflict is not about “settlements”. It is about one group of people trying imposing its will, culture, religion and way of life on another group. With Israel, the “settlements” are only the pretext. If you look at any map of “Palestine,” it has the exact outlines of Israel.

For most Indians, it is hard not to feel a deep sense of historic gratitude towards Israel and the Jewish people. The State of Israel came to our military aid in just about every war India fought as an independent nation since 1947. Our elected leaders, in their vanity, polished their statesmanlike credentials denouncing Israel at every possible international gathering, even as they kept on turning to the Jewish State for help in times of dire need, whether civilian or military. From Golda Meir to Ariel Sharon, Israel never turned down any request.

Getting nothing in return, the tiny and beleaguered nation paid a price for its support for India. At times, adversely affecting its relations with China or annoying its most vital ally, the United States, by extending support to a “socialist” country at the height of the Cold War.

If there ever was a true sign of goodwill extended from one nation to another, Israel had shown it toward India and so many other nations, from Zaire to Haiti and elsewhere.

Despite this, it took India more than four decades just to treat Israel as an equal partner on the world stage — when India established full diplomatic relations with Israel in January 1991.

India, however, had one redeeming quality. Although our political leaders hitched their wagon to the Soviet Union and the Pan-Arab nationalism in the early days of the Cold War, the Hindus of India, who constitute an 80% majority of the country’s population, have been steadfast and consistent in their support for the State of Israel and the Jewish people. An international survey conducted by Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs in 2009 found Indians having the most favorable opinion of Israel, even ahead of U.S. respondents by a small margin. In August 2014, at the height of Gaza conflict, the city of Calcutta staged a 20,000-strong rally in support of the Jewish State, making it probably the largest pro-Israel rally that Asia ever witnessed.

Finally, with the election of Prime Minister Narendra Modi in May 2014, the India’s official policies have begun to reflect the desires and aspirations of the majority Hindu population of the nation.

1524Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu meets with Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi in New York, on September 29, 2014. (Image source: Israel Government Press Office)

To become a successful nation, we realize that we have to emulate the Jewish quest for spiritual and worldly learning. We need a nation of empowered men and women, free and fearless to develop social, technological, entrepreneurial and humanitarian creativity, even while under constant attack.

The homecoming of the Jews and restoration of the Jewish State in its historic land has been a source of great hope for us Hindus. When we see the restoration of Jewish State and revival of Judaism in its ancient land, we Hindus see ourselves.

If Judaism is incomplete without the Jewish homeland, the essence of Hinduism is indivisible with the geography of India. Just as Jews were forced out and in exile for millennia, Hindus too suffered a millennium of Islamic and later European subjugation in their own homeland.

After surviving the most vicious genocide in human history — a brutal and systematic attempt by Nazi Germany to annihilate the entire Jewish population of Europe, claiming six million Jewish lives, the Jewish people worked to create a nation based on democracy, freedom, equality for people of all religions and ethnicities — the only democracy in the Middle East.

Today, over a million Arabs enjoy equal citizenship rights in Israel, and a level of religious liberty and rule of law never seen before in the Middle East. Arab Israelis are present in all walks of Israeli life; holding top positions in business, academia, media, government as well as military leadership.

The tiny nation of Israel absorbed wave after wave of immigration, including a million Jews driven out of the Arab lands soon after the creation of Jewish State in 1948, Ethiopian Jews, and Russians escaping communism. Today, Israel is home to over 80,000 Jews of Indian origin. They have been fully integrated, and have excelled in all areas of society. They serve gallantly in the Israel Defense Force and bring glory to the country in sports. An IDF soldier of Indian origin, Barak Refael Degorker, was killed by Hamas during the Gaza conflict of 2014. Mumbai-born Sarah Avraham became Israel’s 2012 women’s Thai boxing champion.

As the nation-states of Europe drive toward an impending disaster in failing to assert their spiritual and national identity in the face of the massive influx of Muslim migrants, only the example of Israel offers us hope.

We must admit the failures, based on European liberalism, in our nation-building project. Western-style “affirmative-action” has failed to rid the country of caste-based discrimination, and all that the European style of hyper-sensitivity towards “Muslim sentiments” has done is stifle cultural freedoms in the country. India became the first nation to ban Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses, before even Iran, Saudi Arabia and other theocratic Islamic regimes announced their fatwas and bans. For decades, India shied away from technological and academic cooperation with Israel. India seemed to have been trying to act even more Arab than the Arabs themselves.

Only an enlightened nation, built on a strong bedrock of Hindu unity, can ensure a secure and prosperous future for India. We cannot build a nation on foundations of an unjust and immoral caste system.

Just as the resurgence of Judaism in its historic and ancestral homeland means no threat to the Muslim faith, Hindu resurgence and unity should cause no harm to religious minorities of other faiths. Countries that would like to succeed and thrive would do well to follow the example of Israel.

The terrorism originating from neighboring Muslim lands must not only be countered militarily, but also with a renewed assertion of our on spiritual and national identity.

Arabs and Muslims might surely realize that they themselves have been the biggest losers of the wars of fanaticism they have waged, and turn their attention to rebuilding their societies and facing the real issues of violence, bigotry, ignorance and poverty — to name just a few.

Until then, we all have a nation to build and a home to defend.

Recent terrorist attacks in Brussels, Mumbai, Paris, Istanbul and Ankara are simply what Israel has been living with for decades — and India, France, Belgium and Turkey do not have “settlements.” The conflict is not about “settlements”. It is about one group of people trying imposing its will, culture, religion and way of life on another group. With Israel, the “settlements” are only the pretext. If you look at any map of “Palestine,” it has the exact outlines of Israel.

It is beyond our scope, as Indians, to heal the pathologies of the Muslim world. We can only limit the damage by defending our home and securing our national borders.

Until that day comes, we would all do well to stand with Israel.

Rivlin’s cringe-worthy White House visit

December 11, 2015

Rivlin’s cringe-worthy White House visit, Israel Hayom, Ruthie Blum, December 12, 2015

(Please see also, “INS’ALLAH!”: Obama Chanukah party attacks Islamophobia, calls for “justice” for Palestinians. — DM)

Ahead of his visit to the White House on Wednesday, President Reuven Rivlin published an op-ed in The Washington Post titled, “What Israel should do to lay the groundwork for peace.”

As its title suggests, the piece is a blueprint for measures Rivlin thinks the Jewish state should take to make life better for all the people involved in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, even in the absence of a “current viable solution.”

Referring to this as the “tragedy that envelops us all” — rather than a perpetual war waged by the Palestinian Authority against the Jewish state — Rivlin writes that though “there is no diplomatic process underway, and no indication of imminent negotiations,” Israel is “duty-bound to recognize where and how we can take effective action to improve the prospect that we will be able to live together.”

He fails to point out that every time we Israelis do this, we have to spend our days and nights trying to “take effective action” to stay alive, with all the missiles, bombs, guns, knives, Molotov cocktails and rocks being flung our way.

But this doesn’t matter, of course, because Rivlin’s real aim was to “lay the groundwork for peace” with U.S. President Barack Obama. Indeed, our state’s figurehead was determined to get a pat on the head by the dangerous lame duck in Washington with enough remaining power to continue to wreak havoc on the world through the very same attitude expressed in Rivlin’s article.

And it worked, as praise from the Hebrew press indicates.

Yes, the anti-Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu media in Israel stressed that Rivlin was greeted with more warmth from Obama than Netanyahu ever received. The two presidents even lit Hanukkah candles together.

Well, that particular bonding moment gave Rivlin the perfect opportunity to engage in cringeworthy behavior. He actually likened Obama to the “shamash” in the menorah, the “leader with which you light the other candles. You have been lighting the candles for seven years to show your people and the world the right way — we’re sure that the eighth candle you will light next year will show the world how to walk in light.”

If Rivlin was hinting at the light from Islamist rocket-launches and nuclear fission, he might have been on to something. But, of course, he was not. Their nauseating display was designed to reiterate that Muslims are peace-loving victims of a few rotten apples and to perpetuate the myth that financial strain is behind terrorism.

Rivlin actually says this in his piece: “It is worth understanding that the Israeli right has long ignored the eastern part of [Jerusalem] for reasons of internal political differences, while the left has equally neglected investing in the need for infrastructure to serve the 300,000 Palestinians of the city as part of an ideology of political separation from the Palestinians. … Does anyone think that dealing with the sewage, roads, schools and medical centers of eastern Jerusalem can or should wait until the end of the conflict? Is there anyone who thinks the consequences of these economic disparities in the city will stop at genuine or fictitious political borders?”

Obama couldn’t have agreed more.

The official White House “readout” about Rivlin’s visit said, “The leaders discussed their mutual concern about the ongoing violence in Jerusalem, the West Bank and Israel, and the importance of Israeli and Palestinian leaders taking steps to reduce violence and restore calm through both action and rhetoric.”

It is bad enough that the president of the United States holds Israel responsible for the daily attempted slaughter of — and genocidal pronouncements against — Jews by Palestinian perpetrators. But for the Israeli president to accept and spread this vile fallacy is appalling beyond belief. It is certainly a far cry from the Hanukkah miracle we were supposed to be celebrating.

An American Fascism

November 13, 2015

An American Fascism, Front Page MagazineDavid Horowitz, November 12, 2015

(Many of those who oppose freedom of speech also oppose Israel and maintain that “Palestinians” must be helped to eliminate her. Please see also, Selective Outrage on Campus. Their momentum appears to be increasing and the ability of those who oppose them appears to be diminishing. When will it be too late to oppose them effectively?– DM)

click

The racist, McCarthyite, totalitarian movement rearing its ugly head on college campuses as diverse as Missouri, Yale and Vanderbilt is being treated by conservatives as a case of kids too fragile to handle views with which they disagree. This may work as a debating tactic but it misunderstands both the malignancy of the politics behind the campaign and the ferocity of its radical leaders. Now they are calling for the heads of liberals (and getting them). But quaint American prejudices like the First Amendment still stand in their way. But for how long? If this movement, which includes large contingents of the Democratic Party – including the president, achieves critical mass and succeeds in its agendas and acquires the necessary power, who can doubt that they will be putting dissenters in prison and worse? These are people intoxicated with their own virtue, and determined to purge non-believers in their path. They are a perfect analogue to the Islamic fanatics who want to purify the planet. While the Islamic fanatics behead, the American fanatics suppress and burn. At bottom, they see the world in parallel terms: Slay the infidels wherever you find them.

The current eruptions on college campuses, which will be escalating through this year, are the product of four decades of capitulations to leftwing racism and political correctness, which is a totalitarian party line whose inventor Mao Zedong murdered 70 million Chinese in its name. America still has strong traditions of intellectual pluralism and individual rights, which are obstacles in the way of the progressive storm troopers, but for how long? How many capitulations by so-called liberals, how many unconstitutional executive orders, how many coercions by Democrat-controlled government agencies before there are no obstacles left?

We saw these lynch mobs first hand in Ferguson, but only an inaudible few were willing to name them for what they were. In Ferguson, the president of the United States supported the lynchers, along with the Democratic Party and the leftwing chorus. And so it spread to New York and Baltimore and now Missouri and Yale. The time has come to call this for what it is, an American fascism.  But the time is also getting late to reverse the tide.