For a 23 year old Jewish American, the 1977 march by the USA Nazi party in Chicago was a civics lesson that I will never forget. To refresh your memories: In 1977 the Illinois National Socialist Party of America (NSPA) attempted to demonstrate their political existence with a march on Skokie, Illinois. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) interceded in behalf of the NSPA, in the case of the National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie, wherein an Illinois appeals court ruled that the presence of the swastika, the Nazi emblem, would constitute deliberate provocation of the people of Skokie. However, the Court also ruled that Skokie's attorneys had failed to prove that either the Nazi uniform or their printed materials, which it was alleged that the Nazis intended to distribute, would incite violence. The March went on in Chicago and nothing happened.
Thirty four years later, we have a similar situation with Florida Preacher Jones wanting to burn a Koran to prove the political and physical threat of extremist Islam. The Florida ACLU condemned Mr. Jones's message Wednesday as un-American but defended his right to free speech."We cannot pick and choose who is protected by the Constitution," spokesman Brandon Hensler said. "We're very concerned about this wave of anti-Muslim sentiment. But the answer is not to infringe on their right to say what they want to say." I personally agree with the ACLU. Anything else would have made them hypocrites of the first degree.
Preacher Jones, as strange as he may seem, has some valid points to make in his version of a 2011 civics lesson. Preacher Jones claims that Islam is a hybrid religion/political movement similar to communism or the Nazi party, and should not be able to hide behind the cloak of American sensibilities that separate church and state. Furthermore, he claims that the overt threat of violence from the four corners of the Islamic world - if he were to burn the Koran, has not only stifled our free speech, but has intimidated our President and our military.
No one is claiming that all Muslims are terrorists or followers of an extremist version of Islam. That is the asymmetrical argument. What is being claimed is that the Islamiphobic atmosphere that has gained steam and pervades the airwaves is being fed by Islamic insensitivities to American feelings (9-11 Mosque), actual threats of physical harm for expressing our civil rights, and the feeling that our constitution is being exploited for political gain under the guise of religion.
While the nature of Islam today can be debated, it is not a stretch to see the asymmetrical nature of a political version of Islam that is able to exploit our Western values and turn them into tactical advantages in the broad grey area created by a religious/political hybrid. President Obama has demonstrated a heightened sensitivity to the perceived grievances of the global Muslim community - grievances that are no different than what this country has suffered in the name of free speech - be it the Nazi party, the Klu Klux Klan, flag burners, or artists that depict Jesus in works of art produced with human excrement.
The Muslim world is feigning great offense with the Koran burning, and I understand their frustration, but threatening violence and denigrating this country for defending free speech is throwing fuel on the fire.
Monday, September 13, 2010
Monday, September 06, 2010
How will history judge the US involvement in the Iraq war?
They say that history is the narrative of the victor, so even history can be interpreted through a partisan filter. I don’t believe there is any dispute that Saddam’s Iraq was waging war across the Middle East; after all he fought a 10 year war against Iran that killed up to 1 million, invaded a number of his neighbors, and gassed thousands of Kurds who resided within Iraq’s borders. History will probably say that the USA became involved for good reasons: Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait, a US ally – and the potential for Saddam to wreck havoc with the free flow of oil, and more importantly – his overt threats to uses weapons of mass destruction to dominate/blackmail the region.
The partisan talking heads can claim whatever they want, but between Saddam’s claims and bad US intelligence on the matter, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress voted for the invasion of Iraq – after all possible alternatives had been exhausted. The fact that Saddam was bluffing about the weapons is just Monday night quarterbacking and is not relevant to the question about how history will judge the US involvement in the Iraq war. The outcome of our presence there has yet to be determined. If we can finally leave (we will have 50,000 troops there indefinitely), and the Iraqi government sustains the rule of law and becomes an enlightened Democratic beacon of hope to the region, then our presence was a tremendous success. If Iraq falls into the same religious chaos that caused the Iraq/Iran war, then it will be considered Iraq’s failure, not the USA.
The global reality is that you could take all the militaries from around the world and combine them, and they would not be as big or as well equipped as the US military. Whether we like it or not, the US military is the SWAT team for the rest of the world. That is a difficult position for the US to be in, but without this global force, many people believe that the same type of brutal chaos that is ravaging Africa and the Middle East would run rampart across the globe. Of course, the opposing view is that the US foreign policy is causing “bad feelings” and “resentment” around the world, and that our military involvement around the globe makes Jihadist do what they do. Pick your side.
At the end of the day, it was an exercise in the USA trying to protect its national interests - and no country should be faulted for making that attempt.
The partisan talking heads can claim whatever they want, but between Saddam’s claims and bad US intelligence on the matter, both Democrats and Republicans in Congress voted for the invasion of Iraq – after all possible alternatives had been exhausted. The fact that Saddam was bluffing about the weapons is just Monday night quarterbacking and is not relevant to the question about how history will judge the US involvement in the Iraq war. The outcome of our presence there has yet to be determined. If we can finally leave (we will have 50,000 troops there indefinitely), and the Iraqi government sustains the rule of law and becomes an enlightened Democratic beacon of hope to the region, then our presence was a tremendous success. If Iraq falls into the same religious chaos that caused the Iraq/Iran war, then it will be considered Iraq’s failure, not the USA.
The global reality is that you could take all the militaries from around the world and combine them, and they would not be as big or as well equipped as the US military. Whether we like it or not, the US military is the SWAT team for the rest of the world. That is a difficult position for the US to be in, but without this global force, many people believe that the same type of brutal chaos that is ravaging Africa and the Middle East would run rampart across the globe. Of course, the opposing view is that the US foreign policy is causing “bad feelings” and “resentment” around the world, and that our military involvement around the globe makes Jihadist do what they do. Pick your side.
At the end of the day, it was an exercise in the USA trying to protect its national interests - and no country should be faulted for making that attempt.
Monday, July 12, 2010
The Turkish Flotilla Incident
Regarding the NYT 7/10/10 Editorial entitled “After the Flotilla”: As regrettable as the death of 9 Turkish citizens may be, the premise of the editorial - that there should be an inquiry by an “impartial international body” to discern Israel’s guilt or innocence in the flotilla affair – ignores the fact that Israel was indisputably within international law to place a Naval embargo around Gaza. The outcome of Turkey’s attempt to breach the embargo was clearly to create an international incident, and the videos and other evidence clearly show that the entire flotilla and Turkish passengers were pre-prepared for a violent encounter whose outcome was unpredictable.
Israel has agreed to conduct an internal investigation which I am sure will be more impartial and larger in scope than other ”impartial” U.N. investigations into recent Israeli military actions. The “Goldstone” report into Israel’s defensive war in Gaza was a 175 page anti-Israel tirade, ignoring the obvious and predictably demonized Israel. Another U.N. investigation would surely end up with the same conclusion.
Israel’s Navy operates under the same international codes as that of U.S., Britain, France or Russia – none of whom would ever subject their Navies to a hostel international inquiry, especially when there were no legal grounds.
Israel has agreed to conduct an internal investigation which I am sure will be more impartial and larger in scope than other ”impartial” U.N. investigations into recent Israeli military actions. The “Goldstone” report into Israel’s defensive war in Gaza was a 175 page anti-Israel tirade, ignoring the obvious and predictably demonized Israel. Another U.N. investigation would surely end up with the same conclusion.
Israel’s Navy operates under the same international codes as that of U.S., Britain, France or Russia – none of whom would ever subject their Navies to a hostel international inquiry, especially when there were no legal grounds.
Wednesday, June 23, 2010
Sophistry and the Art of Deception
Sophistry – “to make a clever argument with the intent to mislead or be dishonest".
When I recently saw this word for the first time, I was compelled to look it up because it was in reference to how the press, the United Nations and the leftist global movement were piling up on little Israel for enforcing a blockade against Hamas in Gaza. Never mind that at the core of Hamas’s charter is a reference to destroying Israel, never mind that Hamas has shot over 10,000 rockets into Israel from Gaza since it took over in a violent coup on June 15th 2007. Never mind that the “innocent” Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas to a legislative majority of seats in 2006, never mind that Israel allows 10,000 tons of Humanitarian aid in to Gaza DAILY, never mind that Egypt is an equal participant in the blockade of Gaza.
I could go on and on about the hypocritical absurdity of the dual value system that the world uses to judge Israel, but being on the defensive constantly isn’t going to change the tactics of the masters of “sophistry” – the Muslim/Arab world. After all, they have monopolized the United Nations and the global agenda for over 60 years, at the expense of legitimate tragedies of humongous proportions. Let’s be candid and honest. In the last 3 days, over 150 people were massacred in Kyrgyzstan and hundreds of thousands left homeless. All the UN could muster was serious “concern”. It is likely that thousands will die there before the week is out, yet not a peep out of the Arab world, no UN Security Council condemnations, no requests for inquires – virtually no response or concerns.
Are we to blame Israel, Iran, Turkey or so-called peace activists for the brutal recorded assault on the Israeli Navy personal? Maybe all of the above, but President Obama - in my opinion - is the main ingredient in the accelerating tensions in the Middle East. His policy of engaging terrorist regimes like Syria and Iran, the perception that he is leading a strategic reversal of American foreign policy – has created a fear that America’s global security treaties born through decades of multi-lateral understandings with dozens of countries are becoming worthless at breathtaking speed.
The fear of being caught isolated without the American security umbrella, be it Japan, South Korea, Israel – or even Europe, has created a scenario where countries like North Korea and Iran are more apt to exploit these fears by “probing” to determine Obama’s leadership resolve. Sinking a South Korean Navy Vessel – killing 26, or sending a locked and loaded flotilla into an inevitable clash with the Israeli Navy are not random acts. In both instances, President Obama blinked by not supporting both South Korea and Israel – and event went out of his way to limit their response.
The lack of a credible US response backing up Israel – either in word or deed – will surely result in deeper military probing by Israel’s enemies– which will make it more likely that a preemptive strike and/or a military conflagration will take place sooner rather than later.
When I recently saw this word for the first time, I was compelled to look it up because it was in reference to how the press, the United Nations and the leftist global movement were piling up on little Israel for enforcing a blockade against Hamas in Gaza. Never mind that at the core of Hamas’s charter is a reference to destroying Israel, never mind that Hamas has shot over 10,000 rockets into Israel from Gaza since it took over in a violent coup on June 15th 2007. Never mind that the “innocent” Palestinians in Gaza elected Hamas to a legislative majority of seats in 2006, never mind that Israel allows 10,000 tons of Humanitarian aid in to Gaza DAILY, never mind that Egypt is an equal participant in the blockade of Gaza.
I could go on and on about the hypocritical absurdity of the dual value system that the world uses to judge Israel, but being on the defensive constantly isn’t going to change the tactics of the masters of “sophistry” – the Muslim/Arab world. After all, they have monopolized the United Nations and the global agenda for over 60 years, at the expense of legitimate tragedies of humongous proportions. Let’s be candid and honest. In the last 3 days, over 150 people were massacred in Kyrgyzstan and hundreds of thousands left homeless. All the UN could muster was serious “concern”. It is likely that thousands will die there before the week is out, yet not a peep out of the Arab world, no UN Security Council condemnations, no requests for inquires – virtually no response or concerns.
Are we to blame Israel, Iran, Turkey or so-called peace activists for the brutal recorded assault on the Israeli Navy personal? Maybe all of the above, but President Obama - in my opinion - is the main ingredient in the accelerating tensions in the Middle East. His policy of engaging terrorist regimes like Syria and Iran, the perception that he is leading a strategic reversal of American foreign policy – has created a fear that America’s global security treaties born through decades of multi-lateral understandings with dozens of countries are becoming worthless at breathtaking speed.
The fear of being caught isolated without the American security umbrella, be it Japan, South Korea, Israel – or even Europe, has created a scenario where countries like North Korea and Iran are more apt to exploit these fears by “probing” to determine Obama’s leadership resolve. Sinking a South Korean Navy Vessel – killing 26, or sending a locked and loaded flotilla into an inevitable clash with the Israeli Navy are not random acts. In both instances, President Obama blinked by not supporting both South Korea and Israel – and event went out of his way to limit their response.
The lack of a credible US response backing up Israel – either in word or deed – will surely result in deeper military probing by Israel’s enemies– which will make it more likely that a preemptive strike and/or a military conflagration will take place sooner rather than later.
Friday, April 23, 2010
The Battered Wife Syndrome legal defense: An abused defense?
Regarding the CA editorial “Bresden holds complex case” dated 4/23/10: The Gaile Owens case is a slam dunk for the death penalty. She hired a guy to kill her husband, and it was carried out according to plan. This was pre-meditated 1st degree gruesome murder, and is a prime reason why we have the death penalty. My only shock is why it has taken 24 years for the system to bring her up for execution.
I believe the battered woman syndrome (BWS), which I admit exists in obvious and extreme cases, is now too often used as courtroom trickery - a back door legal defense where lawyers find easy traction in a courtroom with no one to defend the murdered male. BWS in most cases is used when there is nothing else for the defense to hang their case.
We live in a society where personal responsibility is no longer a value that is a desired trait, and this spells nothing but trouble for our society. Women are not idiots – after all, they have been fighting for, and deserve equal rights - and there are resources where they can call or go to in order to document domestic violence. They can get a lawyer and get a divorce; they can go to the doctor and document physical abuse.
As a male, it unnerves me that in Memphis, Tennessee a man who lives a normal quite life can be brutally executed by a disgruntled wife in a premeditated fashion and then sees his character assassinated again in court without the benefit of defending himself.
The Mary Winkler case was a travesty of justice. If Gaile Owens execution is suspended or delayed any further, it sends a duel message to the community.
Men: You better be on your best behavior, or you may end up brutally murdered and your character bludgeoned without the benefit of a defense.
Women: Why hire a divorce lawyer? You can have your husband murdered, collect the insurance money and have a happy life. If you get caught, you (and your lawyer) can make up whatever slander you want against the deceased in order to get off on a “battered wife syndrome” defense.
Does this sound like justice to anyone?
I believe the battered woman syndrome (BWS), which I admit exists in obvious and extreme cases, is now too often used as courtroom trickery - a back door legal defense where lawyers find easy traction in a courtroom with no one to defend the murdered male. BWS in most cases is used when there is nothing else for the defense to hang their case.
We live in a society where personal responsibility is no longer a value that is a desired trait, and this spells nothing but trouble for our society. Women are not idiots – after all, they have been fighting for, and deserve equal rights - and there are resources where they can call or go to in order to document domestic violence. They can get a lawyer and get a divorce; they can go to the doctor and document physical abuse.
As a male, it unnerves me that in Memphis, Tennessee a man who lives a normal quite life can be brutally executed by a disgruntled wife in a premeditated fashion and then sees his character assassinated again in court without the benefit of defending himself.
The Mary Winkler case was a travesty of justice. If Gaile Owens execution is suspended or delayed any further, it sends a duel message to the community.
Men: You better be on your best behavior, or you may end up brutally murdered and your character bludgeoned without the benefit of a defense.
Women: Why hire a divorce lawyer? You can have your husband murdered, collect the insurance money and have a happy life. If you get caught, you (and your lawyer) can make up whatever slander you want against the deceased in order to get off on a “battered wife syndrome” defense.
Does this sound like justice to anyone?
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Obama the Paper Tiger
One has to admit, when it comes to staging a political public relations event to distract the press – and at the same time enhance his image as a global leader, President Obama’s recently ended “Nuclear Security Summit” in Washington DC was a masterful stroke of genius.
Unfortunately, there was more smoke and mirrors than substantive results. The recent discovery of an expansion of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons production, the consistent violations of North Korea’s nuclear program, and the clear and present danger that Iran’s nuclear program presents to the Middle East and the entire world was not even on the table for discussion.
President Obama has no problem making outrageous and offensive demands of Israel in order to curry favor from the Arab world. How can our President expect Israel to take him seriously when he is preoccupied with building permits and zoning issues in Israel’s capital, while a fanatical Iran is openly threatening Israel’s existence and at the same time building nuclear bombs? When it comes to the heavy lifting of confronting Iran over its nuclear program – a program which will surely start a dangerous arms race in that region (or worse), Obama is a shameful paper tiger.
Pakistan, which is desperately defending its main cities from Taliban assaults, could fall any day if it were not for the U.S. military propping up the Pakistani government. The odd of their nuclear arsenal falling into Taliban hands - with the help of Pakistan’s Taliban sympathetic security services, is now a likely scenario.
Iran’s entry into the nuclear weapons club will usher in an era of uncertainty and paranoia around the world – especially in the Mideast - that will equal the darkest days of the US/Russia cold war. The only difference is that Iran has demonstrated in the past – unlike Russia – that it has been consistently willing to share their most sophisticated weapons to various fanatical groups who are more than willing to use them without any limitation.
The Summit’s fancy gilded dinners, tuxedo-ed cocktail parties, grand closing proclamations, and the PR enhancing Obama press conferences cannot mask the fact that his Presidency is incapable of providing leadership on the serious foreign policy issues of the day. In the absence of America’s moral global leadership, the world is cast into the ocean on a boat without oars, and – in my opinion, the world is entering a phase more dangerous than we could eve r have imagined.
Unfortunately, there was more smoke and mirrors than substantive results. The recent discovery of an expansion of Pakistan’s nuclear weapons production, the consistent violations of North Korea’s nuclear program, and the clear and present danger that Iran’s nuclear program presents to the Middle East and the entire world was not even on the table for discussion.
President Obama has no problem making outrageous and offensive demands of Israel in order to curry favor from the Arab world. How can our President expect Israel to take him seriously when he is preoccupied with building permits and zoning issues in Israel’s capital, while a fanatical Iran is openly threatening Israel’s existence and at the same time building nuclear bombs? When it comes to the heavy lifting of confronting Iran over its nuclear program – a program which will surely start a dangerous arms race in that region (or worse), Obama is a shameful paper tiger.
Pakistan, which is desperately defending its main cities from Taliban assaults, could fall any day if it were not for the U.S. military propping up the Pakistani government. The odd of their nuclear arsenal falling into Taliban hands - with the help of Pakistan’s Taliban sympathetic security services, is now a likely scenario.
Iran’s entry into the nuclear weapons club will usher in an era of uncertainty and paranoia around the world – especially in the Mideast - that will equal the darkest days of the US/Russia cold war. The only difference is that Iran has demonstrated in the past – unlike Russia – that it has been consistently willing to share their most sophisticated weapons to various fanatical groups who are more than willing to use them without any limitation.
The Summit’s fancy gilded dinners, tuxedo-ed cocktail parties, grand closing proclamations, and the PR enhancing Obama press conferences cannot mask the fact that his Presidency is incapable of providing leadership on the serious foreign policy issues of the day. In the absence of America’s moral global leadership, the world is cast into the ocean on a boat without oars, and – in my opinion, the world is entering a phase more dangerous than we could eve r have imagined.
Thursday, December 31, 2009
Airport Security
The glaringly obvious hole in airport security is the political correctness that requires everyone to go through the same security check. Does a 75 year old grandmother from Memphis -who flies regularly - really need to go through the same security check as a 23 year old Nigerian Muslim, who has Yemen stamped on his passport? El Al Airlines is the most secure airline in the world and their first line of defense is psychological profiling. Once someone is flagged (for whatever reason), they must go through a gauntlet of intense security questioning and inspection. The USA is too big and our resources are too limited to examine everyone using the same methods - and the result was what happened on Flight 253. We need to focus our airport security resources on those who are most likely to fit the profile of a terrorist: Individuals traveling either alone or in groups, between the age of 16-45, who may appear to be Islamic, have an Islamic name, have traveled in the past to Europe, Africa, Indonesia or the Mideast, and who appear nervous and can’t easily explain their past or where they are going . Does anyone remember the last time a 50 year old blonde haired Swede, or a 80 year old couple from Stuttgart blew up a plane?
I understand the implications of profiling to one’s civil rights, but we’re not talking about the horrible internment that happened to the Japanese during WW2. We must allow our society to protect itself from an enemy that has no boundaries, and views our civil sensibilities as a weakness to be exploited. After all, doesn't society - as a whole - have the civil right to be protected while in the air?
I understand the implications of profiling to one’s civil rights, but we’re not talking about the horrible internment that happened to the Japanese during WW2. We must allow our society to protect itself from an enemy that has no boundaries, and views our civil sensibilities as a weakness to be exploited. After all, doesn't society - as a whole - have the civil right to be protected while in the air?
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Obama’s 1 year foreign policy report card grade: F
President Obama came into the office 11 months ago with virtually zero foreign policy experience, but with an expectation that he could staff his administration with smart people who specialized in the field. In a moment of supreme over-confidence, he announced in a Cairo speech that he was going to “re-engage the Muslim world in a way that would respect their culture”, while at the same time “work to solve the Israeli/Arab conflict” once and for all. This was his stated a foreign policy priority during his first term. While it’s only been 11 months, let’s take an inventory of his accomplishments so far:
1) He set a September 30th deadline for Iran to end their nuclear efforts “or else” the US would use harsh measures. We are in December and Iran is still thumbing their nose at the world and Obama still making empty threats. Obama “re-calibrated” his deadline to December 31st, and there is no expectation in either the USA or Iran that anything will happen.
2) Hillary Clinton, in an attempt to assure Israeli fears over a possible nuclear Iran, said “if Iran bombed Israel the US would retaliate” – which only served to make Israelis less secure with her inference that the US would allow Iran to have the bomb.
3) Obama, true to his campaign promise, has pulled most US troops out of harm’s way in Iraq, and the predicted massacre of the Iraqi forces that worked with our troops began immediately. This didn’t help US credibility in the eyes of any of our dwindling allies in the Middle East.
4) During the campaign President Obama described Afghanistan as “the good war” because that is where Al Quada is based. It took President Obama 3 months to respond to our US military Afghanistan commander’s request for 40,000 more troops. His response was 30,000 more troops, no logistics infrastructure, and a 12 month timetable before evaluation and possible withdrawal. This was greeted in the Muslim world with astonishment, and served to encourage the Taliban that they are winning the war and can just sit it out for the next 12 months.
5) President Obama demanded that the Israeli government to stop ALL expansion of existing Israeli cities around Jerusalem that are in the disputed territories, even though previous negotiations between previous US governments, as well as with Palestinian negotiators have always allowed for natural growth in these areas. This reversal of US policy alienated and created a sense of betrayal among the Israeli public towards the Obama administration, and also served to cause the Palestinians to backtrack on previous concessions and harden their positions regarding any further negotiations. Meanwhile, the Israeli concessions - having not been met with reciprocity by the Palestinians, are on the verge of being canceled.
6) In March, 2009 the Obama administration suggested to Russia that the US would pull its missile-defense plan in Europe in exchange for Russia more aggressively joining an international effort to stop Iran’s nuclear program and isolate Iran. In September 2009, Obama went ahead and scraped the missile plan and got nothing in return from Russia on Iran, which was interpreted by the international community as a complete US capitulation to Russian demands.
The net result of 10 months of US backtracking, back stabbing and withdrawals is that Muslim extremists all over the Middle East are emboldened and motivated like they have never been since Ayatollah Khomeini took over in Iran in 1979. Within months of our withdrawal from Afghanistan, the extremists will be focusing on taking over the government of nuclear armed Afghanistan.
I will be the first to say that the former Bush administration made some pretty big mistakes – both in foreign policy and in financial policy - but at the rate Obama’s “foreign policy experts” are “recalibrating US foreign policy” around the world, they are looking more like rank amateurs. They seem to have no concept of the possible unintended consequences of their foreign policy initiatives, and no appreciation for how difficult - if not impossible - it will be for a future US administration to fix the damage that is being done.
One thing the Democrats are not amateurs at is the ability to dress up a pile of partisan pork, slap some lipstick on top, and call it a health care bill. But that’s another story …….
1) He set a September 30th deadline for Iran to end their nuclear efforts “or else” the US would use harsh measures. We are in December and Iran is still thumbing their nose at the world and Obama still making empty threats. Obama “re-calibrated” his deadline to December 31st, and there is no expectation in either the USA or Iran that anything will happen.
2) Hillary Clinton, in an attempt to assure Israeli fears over a possible nuclear Iran, said “if Iran bombed Israel the US would retaliate” – which only served to make Israelis less secure with her inference that the US would allow Iran to have the bomb.
3) Obama, true to his campaign promise, has pulled most US troops out of harm’s way in Iraq, and the predicted massacre of the Iraqi forces that worked with our troops began immediately. This didn’t help US credibility in the eyes of any of our dwindling allies in the Middle East.
4) During the campaign President Obama described Afghanistan as “the good war” because that is where Al Quada is based. It took President Obama 3 months to respond to our US military Afghanistan commander’s request for 40,000 more troops. His response was 30,000 more troops, no logistics infrastructure, and a 12 month timetable before evaluation and possible withdrawal. This was greeted in the Muslim world with astonishment, and served to encourage the Taliban that they are winning the war and can just sit it out for the next 12 months.
5) President Obama demanded that the Israeli government to stop ALL expansion of existing Israeli cities around Jerusalem that are in the disputed territories, even though previous negotiations between previous US governments, as well as with Palestinian negotiators have always allowed for natural growth in these areas. This reversal of US policy alienated and created a sense of betrayal among the Israeli public towards the Obama administration, and also served to cause the Palestinians to backtrack on previous concessions and harden their positions regarding any further negotiations. Meanwhile, the Israeli concessions - having not been met with reciprocity by the Palestinians, are on the verge of being canceled.
6) In March, 2009 the Obama administration suggested to Russia that the US would pull its missile-defense plan in Europe in exchange for Russia more aggressively joining an international effort to stop Iran’s nuclear program and isolate Iran. In September 2009, Obama went ahead and scraped the missile plan and got nothing in return from Russia on Iran, which was interpreted by the international community as a complete US capitulation to Russian demands.
The net result of 10 months of US backtracking, back stabbing and withdrawals is that Muslim extremists all over the Middle East are emboldened and motivated like they have never been since Ayatollah Khomeini took over in Iran in 1979. Within months of our withdrawal from Afghanistan, the extremists will be focusing on taking over the government of nuclear armed Afghanistan.
I will be the first to say that the former Bush administration made some pretty big mistakes – both in foreign policy and in financial policy - but at the rate Obama’s “foreign policy experts” are “recalibrating US foreign policy” around the world, they are looking more like rank amateurs. They seem to have no concept of the possible unintended consequences of their foreign policy initiatives, and no appreciation for how difficult - if not impossible - it will be for a future US administration to fix the damage that is being done.
One thing the Democrats are not amateurs at is the ability to dress up a pile of partisan pork, slap some lipstick on top, and call it a health care bill. But that’s another story …….
Monday, December 21, 2009
Is the Memphis Commercial Appeal editorial staff anti-Israel?
Please explain to me why the CA felt the need to report on a criminal incident that perpetrated by one individual in Israel in 1990 in your snip-it entitled "Israel: Organ Harvesting in 1990's reveled" (12/21/09 A4). The "rehashing" of the 1990 incident, especially when framed in an accusatory tone against the entire state of Israel as if it happened yesterday, is nothing more than an overt attempt to demonize the Israeli people. The timing of this regurgitation - 4 days before Christmas - is especially suspect.
This incident was perpetrated by a single pathologist who was criminally indicted, but the PRESS - including the CA, have done their best - for almost 20 years - to portray this single incident as a systemic policy of the Israeli people in an attempt to keep the blood libel theories about Jews alive, and to accomplish what wars, and terrorism couldn't: Political pressure to delegitimize the Israeli people.
Had a single pathologist in the USA done the same (and they have dozens of times without prosecution), I doubt it would be reported 20 years later accusing the US of "harvesting" organs. I just wish the CA had as much righteous indignation at terrorism against Israeli civilians as they do for blatant abuses of the press to frame Israel as illegitimate.
I'm sure that the Palestinian propagandists in the Mideast will try their best to keep this story alive, and even embellish it as time goes on, but I don't understand why the CA editorial staff feels the need to be their accomplice.
This incident was perpetrated by a single pathologist who was criminally indicted, but the PRESS - including the CA, have done their best - for almost 20 years - to portray this single incident as a systemic policy of the Israeli people in an attempt to keep the blood libel theories about Jews alive, and to accomplish what wars, and terrorism couldn't: Political pressure to delegitimize the Israeli people.
Had a single pathologist in the USA done the same (and they have dozens of times without prosecution), I doubt it would be reported 20 years later accusing the US of "harvesting" organs. I just wish the CA had as much righteous indignation at terrorism against Israeli civilians as they do for blatant abuses of the press to frame Israel as illegitimate.
I'm sure that the Palestinian propagandists in the Mideast will try their best to keep this story alive, and even embellish it as time goes on, but I don't understand why the CA editorial staff feels the need to be their accomplice.
Saturday, December 12, 2009
What is love?
Max Fargotstein on on love and Marriage. Written on August 5th, 1970, at age 57 yrs.
Max Fargotstein (07/22/1913 – 07/02/989), was married to Esta (Katz) Fargotstein (October 25th, 1919 – January 2nd, 2009). Max and Esta had 6 children, Susan, Gayle, Emily, Laura, Shep and Bill (4 girls and 2 boys). This letter - Max’s vivid description on how to tell when you are in love, was to written to Emily when she was 22 years old. I believe the wisdom of Max’s point of view has stood up to the test of time, and are as valid today as they were 40 years ago.
As for my children, David , Sam and Molly Fargotstein: I am SOOOO pleased that this letter articulating my father’s (your grandfather’s) philosophy about love and marriage has survived 40 years. This is truly a gift, and I am putting it up on my internet blog and hope that thousands of people read it. The irony of this letter is that I am currently 55 years old – roughly the same age as my father when he wrote this letter.
Shep Fargotstein 12/12/2009
Aug. 5, 1970
Dear Emily,
Your mother told me a few days ago that you had asked her again how you could tell when you were in love. This is quite a question and I am sure you will get as many answers as there are different people to give them to you.
First of all, I don’t really know what love is. I think if you want to find something that you can sink your teeth into, you might call it a state of “very deep affection”.
I think one of the most horrible things that have happened to the children in the last 20 years is that they have been so romanticized and brainwashed by books and movies and a lot of double talk that their emotions and what they expect out of life is quite confused. There is no simple answer to this question and this “ state of deep affection” varies so much because everybody has a certain amount of affection that they can give or rather I should say, do give, and their reactions vary greatly.
I am going to try to approach this from a woman’s angle, if I may, because that is the one you are really interested in. I think that a woman normally is first attracted to a man by the way he looks and the way he acts and the other mannerisms which I am perhaps not too aware of. This is more or less the icing on the cake that draws the flies.
After you have a strong attraction, a woman, whether she admits it to herself or not, is whether she respects the person she is attracted to. Respect has absolutely nothing to do with attraction and when I say respect, I mean as a man in the best meaning of the word. By this, I mean, if she respects what he believes in - and he is a man of principle. I don’t mean that you are looking for an angel, but you want somebody that you know believes in what he thinks is right and I think it is almost universal - though you might not live by the same code, you can admire what he is and what he believes in.
I think one of the most important gauges of this “state of deep affection” is how you feel when you introduce him to the people you respect and admire. If you feel proud - if everything else is as it should be, then you have what I call a good start.
I think a woman has to consider, even though she may do it unconsciously, if he is the kind of person who would never under any circumstances hurt her, physically or mentally.
I think a pretty good gauge of this is to see what type of person you are interested in and then honestly ask yourself “would I like for my children to be exactly like him?”
I have seen good marriages and very poor marriages, even though some of them still stay together, where one of them married because the other party needed them. There is no such thing as a successful marriage with one of the two leaning on the partner but rather, a good marriage is like two boards tilted at an angle, and supporting each other. This business of bells ringing and lightening flashing is a lot of bull and if anything such as this did happen - it happens 30 years after the marriage.
A good marriage, and I mean this in the finest meaning of the word, has to have, I think, all of these ingredients, plus there must be enough in a financial way to make life bearable. Money is not the most important thing in the world but the absence of it can sometimes be a tragedy - if it’s about a pair of shoes, the rent or a doctor bill. It is very hard to be happy and content when the frustrations and anxieties of money matters are constantly at your throat.
I don’t think I have to tell you what a good marriage is because I think you have seen it in your own home, but this is not where they start. They are built memory by memory, consideration by consideration, by the tender touch and loving glance.
What I am trying to say to you in a very awkward way is that the more you put into a marriage, the more you get out of it and the basic ingredients must be there before a marriage has a chance of really growing and becoming the source of pleasure and contentment it can be. Don’t expect anything worthwhile to be easy and while a person might think that this is something they can never experience, I believe two decent people, if properly qualified, can build their “enchanted cottage” by putting together the best that is in them into a marriage.
You will notice that I am intertwining marriage and love because this is what it is all about. Morals may change, customs may change, but the man-woman relationship basically never changes and the ingredient that made a good marriage 100 years ago, are still valid today.
I realize I will never put Shakespeare out of business, but if you even get one thought out of this, I will be very happy.
I am mature enough to know that I have to expect disappoint in my children and it would be silly to think otherwise, but I never felt nor will I ever accept the feeling of being ashamed of any of my children. When I say ashamed, it is not for what other people may think and feel - but the way, I, myself feel inside of me about their conduct and attitude.
Love,
Daddyo
Dear Laurie,
I am enclosing a copy of this letter I wrote to Emily and I would appreciate it if you would read it, as I imagine the same question has, or will, at some time come to your mind and you might want to read this and give it some thought.
Love,
Daddyo
Max Fargotstein (07/22/1913 – 07/02/989), was married to Esta (Katz) Fargotstein (October 25th, 1919 – January 2nd, 2009). Max and Esta had 6 children, Susan, Gayle, Emily, Laura, Shep and Bill (4 girls and 2 boys). This letter - Max’s vivid description on how to tell when you are in love, was to written to Emily when she was 22 years old. I believe the wisdom of Max’s point of view has stood up to the test of time, and are as valid today as they were 40 years ago.
As for my children, David , Sam and Molly Fargotstein: I am SOOOO pleased that this letter articulating my father’s (your grandfather’s) philosophy about love and marriage has survived 40 years. This is truly a gift, and I am putting it up on my internet blog and hope that thousands of people read it. The irony of this letter is that I am currently 55 years old – roughly the same age as my father when he wrote this letter.
Shep Fargotstein 12/12/2009
Aug. 5, 1970
Dear Emily,
Your mother told me a few days ago that you had asked her again how you could tell when you were in love. This is quite a question and I am sure you will get as many answers as there are different people to give them to you.
First of all, I don’t really know what love is. I think if you want to find something that you can sink your teeth into, you might call it a state of “very deep affection”.
I think one of the most horrible things that have happened to the children in the last 20 years is that they have been so romanticized and brainwashed by books and movies and a lot of double talk that their emotions and what they expect out of life is quite confused. There is no simple answer to this question and this “ state of deep affection” varies so much because everybody has a certain amount of affection that they can give or rather I should say, do give, and their reactions vary greatly.
I am going to try to approach this from a woman’s angle, if I may, because that is the one you are really interested in. I think that a woman normally is first attracted to a man by the way he looks and the way he acts and the other mannerisms which I am perhaps not too aware of. This is more or less the icing on the cake that draws the flies.
After you have a strong attraction, a woman, whether she admits it to herself or not, is whether she respects the person she is attracted to. Respect has absolutely nothing to do with attraction and when I say respect, I mean as a man in the best meaning of the word. By this, I mean, if she respects what he believes in - and he is a man of principle. I don’t mean that you are looking for an angel, but you want somebody that you know believes in what he thinks is right and I think it is almost universal - though you might not live by the same code, you can admire what he is and what he believes in.
I think one of the most important gauges of this “state of deep affection” is how you feel when you introduce him to the people you respect and admire. If you feel proud - if everything else is as it should be, then you have what I call a good start.
I think a woman has to consider, even though she may do it unconsciously, if he is the kind of person who would never under any circumstances hurt her, physically or mentally.
I think a pretty good gauge of this is to see what type of person you are interested in and then honestly ask yourself “would I like for my children to be exactly like him?”
I have seen good marriages and very poor marriages, even though some of them still stay together, where one of them married because the other party needed them. There is no such thing as a successful marriage with one of the two leaning on the partner but rather, a good marriage is like two boards tilted at an angle, and supporting each other. This business of bells ringing and lightening flashing is a lot of bull and if anything such as this did happen - it happens 30 years after the marriage.
A good marriage, and I mean this in the finest meaning of the word, has to have, I think, all of these ingredients, plus there must be enough in a financial way to make life bearable. Money is not the most important thing in the world but the absence of it can sometimes be a tragedy - if it’s about a pair of shoes, the rent or a doctor bill. It is very hard to be happy and content when the frustrations and anxieties of money matters are constantly at your throat.
I don’t think I have to tell you what a good marriage is because I think you have seen it in your own home, but this is not where they start. They are built memory by memory, consideration by consideration, by the tender touch and loving glance.
What I am trying to say to you in a very awkward way is that the more you put into a marriage, the more you get out of it and the basic ingredients must be there before a marriage has a chance of really growing and becoming the source of pleasure and contentment it can be. Don’t expect anything worthwhile to be easy and while a person might think that this is something they can never experience, I believe two decent people, if properly qualified, can build their “enchanted cottage” by putting together the best that is in them into a marriage.
You will notice that I am intertwining marriage and love because this is what it is all about. Morals may change, customs may change, but the man-woman relationship basically never changes and the ingredient that made a good marriage 100 years ago, are still valid today.
I realize I will never put Shakespeare out of business, but if you even get one thought out of this, I will be very happy.
I am mature enough to know that I have to expect disappoint in my children and it would be silly to think otherwise, but I never felt nor will I ever accept the feeling of being ashamed of any of my children. When I say ashamed, it is not for what other people may think and feel - but the way, I, myself feel inside of me about their conduct and attitude.
Love,
Daddyo
Dear Laurie,
I am enclosing a copy of this letter I wrote to Emily and I would appreciate it if you would read it, as I imagine the same question has, or will, at some time come to your mind and you might want to read this and give it some thought.
Love,
Daddyo
Friday, November 27, 2009
Should parents be prosecuted for their kids being habitually truant?
If my memory serves me correctly, back in the 1960s there was an ordinance or other legal requirement that parents send their children to school, the only problem back them was that it was only enforced in the white areas of Memphis.
The reality is that the only way to turn the Memphis public school population around is to have all the known tools needed to get the job done in the toolbox. We can fund the schools to the maximum, keep the schools open 12 months a year, reduce classroom teacher ratios to 10:1, and even put qualified teachers in every classroom – but if the parents don’t care, and the kids don’t show up, then it all for nothing.
Parents should be prosecuted, using the same logic that allows the police to prosecute a negligent parent that would leave their child in a car in the summer. Wouldn’t a parent be arrested if a child was found to be malnourished from neglect? A child that isn’t in school and learning a peer level is malnourished intellectually, and that parent is guilty of neglect.
How else are we to motivate the parents of the children at risk other than punitive action? I find it hard to believe that any parents of school age children would have any problem with such a public policy, and I would suspect that anyone against it probably wants the status quo to remain for a reason: They don’t want to get up in the morning, fix lunch for their kid, take him to school, help them with their homework – in other words, act like a parent should act.
The reality is that the only way to turn the Memphis public school population around is to have all the known tools needed to get the job done in the toolbox. We can fund the schools to the maximum, keep the schools open 12 months a year, reduce classroom teacher ratios to 10:1, and even put qualified teachers in every classroom – but if the parents don’t care, and the kids don’t show up, then it all for nothing.
Parents should be prosecuted, using the same logic that allows the police to prosecute a negligent parent that would leave their child in a car in the summer. Wouldn’t a parent be arrested if a child was found to be malnourished from neglect? A child that isn’t in school and learning a peer level is malnourished intellectually, and that parent is guilty of neglect.
How else are we to motivate the parents of the children at risk other than punitive action? I find it hard to believe that any parents of school age children would have any problem with such a public policy, and I would suspect that anyone against it probably wants the status quo to remain for a reason: They don’t want to get up in the morning, fix lunch for their kid, take him to school, help them with their homework – in other words, act like a parent should act.
Wednesday, November 25, 2009
What about Uptown Memphis?
In reference to the 11/25/09 CA article entitled “Fight awaits CCC on beer, panhandling”, I find the debate lacking a comprehensive perspective from our newly elected Memphis political leadership. Any honest debate has to discuss the inescapable issues of the homeless and the mentally ill from a political perspective. Policing is a short-term answer; public policy is a long-term attempt to deal with the issue.
I love downtown, and I appreciate the function that the Center City Commission serves in promoting the development of downtown, but who is lobbying on the behalf of my immediate neighborhood – East Memphis? In recent years, it seems that every corner on Poplar between White Station and Kirby are occupied by panhandlers or the mentally ill. It’s not a fluke that they don’t occupy the street corners in on Poplar throughout Germantown. Panhandling is not tolerated in Germantown or any other outlying suburb. I know it’s not politically correct to say it, but it does not reflect well on Memphis to have panhandlers on every corner of what is …for lack of a better description … Memphis’s “uptown” – Poplar between 240 and Kirby.
With that said, the city of Memphis has scattered the panhandlers all over Memphis with HUD Section 8 housing subsidies and the net effect is that there are no social services (mental health, job counseling, etc.) readily available to them. They are on the streets with no means to avail themselves of the services that are currently available. This is COMMUNITY issue first, a housing problem second, a health issue third.
I love downtown, and I appreciate the function that the Center City Commission serves in promoting the development of downtown, but who is lobbying on the behalf of my immediate neighborhood – East Memphis? In recent years, it seems that every corner on Poplar between White Station and Kirby are occupied by panhandlers or the mentally ill. It’s not a fluke that they don’t occupy the street corners in on Poplar throughout Germantown. Panhandling is not tolerated in Germantown or any other outlying suburb. I know it’s not politically correct to say it, but it does not reflect well on Memphis to have panhandlers on every corner of what is …for lack of a better description … Memphis’s “uptown” – Poplar between 240 and Kirby.
With that said, the city of Memphis has scattered the panhandlers all over Memphis with HUD Section 8 housing subsidies and the net effect is that there are no social services (mental health, job counseling, etc.) readily available to them. They are on the streets with no means to avail themselves of the services that are currently available. This is COMMUNITY issue first, a housing problem second, a health issue third.
Sunday, November 22, 2009
Obama’s 10 month foreign policy journey
President Obama came into the office 10 months ago with virtually zero foreign policy experience, but with an expectation that he could staff his administration with smart people who specialized in the field. In a moment of supreme over-confidence, he announced in a Cairo speech that he was going to “re-engage the Muslim world in a way that would respect their “culture”, while at the same time “ work to solve the Israeli/Arab conflict” once and for all. This was his stated foreign policy priority during his first term. While it’s only been 10 months, let’s take an inventory of his accomplishments so far:
1) He set a September 30th deadline for Iran to end their nuclear efforts “or else” the US would use harsh measures. We are in November and Iran is still thumbing their nose at the world and Obama still making empty threats. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, trying to assure Israeli’s fears, said “if Iran bombed Israel the US would retaliate” – which only served to make Israelis less secure with her inference that the US would allow Iran to have the bomb and that containment was now the goal.
2) Obama, true to his campaign promise, has pulled most US troops out of harm’s way in Iraq, and the predicted massacre of the Iraqi forces began immediately. This didn’t help US credibility in the eyes of many of our dwindling allies in the Middle East.
3) During the campaign President Obama described Afghanistan as “the good war” because that is where Al Quada is based. Eight weeks ago, our military commander in the field asked for 40,000 more troops, and Obama is still trying to decide whether to add more troops - despite the fact that this month our troops are dying there at a record pace. President Obama’s “alternative strategy” is to reduce the US forces in Afghanistan and bribe the Taliban into working with the weak Afghanistan army. Analysts on the other side of this argument suggest that the money will end up financing the Taliban war against US forces in Afghanistan because there is no evidence that you can bribe someone who is fighting for a religious ideology. Plus, what happens when you stop paying them, or someone pays them more?
4) President Obama demanded that the Israeli government stop ALL expansion of existing Israeli cities around Jerusalem that are in the disputed territories, even though previous negotiations between previous US governments, as well as with Palestinian negotiators have always allowed for natural growth in these areas. This reversal of US policy not only served to alienate and create a sense of betrayal among the Israeli public towards the US and Obama, but also served to cause the Palestinians to backtrack on previous concessions and harden their positions regarding any further negotiations. Quite predictably, the Israelis have hardened their positions in retaliation for what they see as both an American and Palestinian conspiracy to change the terms of the negotiations. Recent Israeli polls indicate that 80% of Israelis don’t trust President Obama.
5) In March, 2009 the Obama administration suggested to Russia that the US would pull its missile-defense plan in Europe in exchange for Russia more aggressively joining an international effort to stop Iran’s nuclear program and isolate Iran. In September 2009, Obama went ahead and scraped the missile plan and go nothing in return from Russia on Iran, which was interpreted by the international community as a complete US capitulation to Russian demands.
The net result of 10 months of US backtracking, backstabbing and withdrawals is that Muslim extremists all over the Middle East are emboldened and motivated like they have never been since Ayatollah Khomeini took over in Iran in 1979. All of a sudden they are now focusing on taking on the government of nuclear armed Afghanistan
I will be the first to say that the former Bush administration made some pretty big mistakes, but at the rate Obama’s “foreign policy experts” are “recalibrating US foreign policy” around the world, they are looking more like rank amateurs who have no concept of the consequences of their meddling in foreign policy.
1) He set a September 30th deadline for Iran to end their nuclear efforts “or else” the US would use harsh measures. We are in November and Iran is still thumbing their nose at the world and Obama still making empty threats. Meanwhile, Hillary Clinton, trying to assure Israeli’s fears, said “if Iran bombed Israel the US would retaliate” – which only served to make Israelis less secure with her inference that the US would allow Iran to have the bomb and that containment was now the goal.
2) Obama, true to his campaign promise, has pulled most US troops out of harm’s way in Iraq, and the predicted massacre of the Iraqi forces began immediately. This didn’t help US credibility in the eyes of many of our dwindling allies in the Middle East.
3) During the campaign President Obama described Afghanistan as “the good war” because that is where Al Quada is based. Eight weeks ago, our military commander in the field asked for 40,000 more troops, and Obama is still trying to decide whether to add more troops - despite the fact that this month our troops are dying there at a record pace. President Obama’s “alternative strategy” is to reduce the US forces in Afghanistan and bribe the Taliban into working with the weak Afghanistan army. Analysts on the other side of this argument suggest that the money will end up financing the Taliban war against US forces in Afghanistan because there is no evidence that you can bribe someone who is fighting for a religious ideology. Plus, what happens when you stop paying them, or someone pays them more?
4) President Obama demanded that the Israeli government stop ALL expansion of existing Israeli cities around Jerusalem that are in the disputed territories, even though previous negotiations between previous US governments, as well as with Palestinian negotiators have always allowed for natural growth in these areas. This reversal of US policy not only served to alienate and create a sense of betrayal among the Israeli public towards the US and Obama, but also served to cause the Palestinians to backtrack on previous concessions and harden their positions regarding any further negotiations. Quite predictably, the Israelis have hardened their positions in retaliation for what they see as both an American and Palestinian conspiracy to change the terms of the negotiations. Recent Israeli polls indicate that 80% of Israelis don’t trust President Obama.
5) In March, 2009 the Obama administration suggested to Russia that the US would pull its missile-defense plan in Europe in exchange for Russia more aggressively joining an international effort to stop Iran’s nuclear program and isolate Iran. In September 2009, Obama went ahead and scraped the missile plan and go nothing in return from Russia on Iran, which was interpreted by the international community as a complete US capitulation to Russian demands.
The net result of 10 months of US backtracking, backstabbing and withdrawals is that Muslim extremists all over the Middle East are emboldened and motivated like they have never been since Ayatollah Khomeini took over in Iran in 1979. All of a sudden they are now focusing on taking on the government of nuclear armed Afghanistan
I will be the first to say that the former Bush administration made some pretty big mistakes, but at the rate Obama’s “foreign policy experts” are “recalibrating US foreign policy” around the world, they are looking more like rank amateurs who have no concept of the consequences of their meddling in foreign policy.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
200 tons of Iranian arms seized:Where is the moral outrage?
The Israeli seizer of a cargo ship 100 miles off the coast of Israel, loaded with HUNDREDS of TONS of Iranian arms bound for Israel’s enemies – Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon - has predictably produced a lack of global outrage that will only serve to further discredit those who profess to own the moral high ground in judging Israel’s defensive wars on her borders.
Among the cargo aboard the seized ship were over 3,000 Katyusha rockets, which were used to kill over 1200 Israelis citizens during the most recent Israeli/Lebanon war. The containers on the ship were tracked from the moment they left Iran until they were seized by the Israelis, and the containers were clearly marked as originating from the “Iranian Shipping Lines Group”. Iranian fingerprints are not new to the armed conflicts surrounding Israel’s borders, and this is not the first time that and Iranian arms shipment has been intercepted.
My hope is that the Israeli government, led by PM Netanyahu, will put an end to the Iranian ruse of “plausible deniability” - allowing Iranian surrogates Hamas and Hezbollah to conduct Iran’s dirty business on Israel’s borders, while claiming they have nothing to do with it.
Israel has a score to settle with the extremist Iranian regime and their revolutionary guards that is not just about their ambitions to produce nuclear weapons. It is about the past 30 years of Iranian instigated terrorism on Israel’s borders. It must be noted that the recent riots and pitched battles led by the innocent Iranian people in the streets of Iran have shown that they don’t support the Ahmadinejad government and that they are victims too. The question is whether the self-appointed global leadership of the moral high ground (and President Obama) are going to align with Israel against Iran - and capitalize on the huge opportunity presented by this seized ship, or will they continue to disregard this vagrant violation of international law?
Monday, June 25, 2007
The Fastest Way to Stop a War is to Lose it
Opponents of the Iraq war are either predicting we will lose, or are advocating that we depart prematurely - which will make defeat a fact. Many of them use the analogy of the US withdrawal from Viet Nam or Reagan's withdrawal from Beirut as the basis for their argument.
But there is an equal argument that the US pullout from Beirut was the first of many strategic military mistakes made by the US that has contributed to the horrible situation in the Mideast today. The US pullout from Lebanon emboldened Iran and their Lebanese surrogate, Hezbollah. Since then, Iran has become the epicenter of state sponsored Islamic extremism in the Middle East, and Hezbollah has transformed from a minor terrorist group into a large scale army whose existence is devoted to provoking instability in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Gaza, as well as in Iraq.
The critics of the Iraq war cry "pull out", as if there are zero consequences. When we pulled out of Viet Nam in 1975, it led to horrors that engulfed the region. The Khmer Rouge killed 1-2 million fellow Cambodians in a genocidal rampage. In Viet Nam, up to a million died in re-education camps and millions fled, mostly by boat. The defeat of the US in Viet Nam emboldened Brezhnev and the Soviets went on a geo-political offensive in the third world for over 10 years. While I am glad we left Viet Nam, there were consequences that we didn't anticipate. I say this as a former anti-Viet Nam war activist.
The pretenses that led the US war in Iraq, whether you think they were morally right or wrong - are totally irrelevant to the discussion of "what do we do now". There is no doubt that Iraq is a mess, but the reality is that the coalition forces are making slow progress that, even today, far exceeds the doomsday pre-war predictions. Do we want our troops out of harms way in Iraq? Of course. Do we want to leave open the possibility that millions could die as a result of a premature withdrawal? No. Do we want to see the US further vilified in the global community for letting Iraq and her neighbors convulse in a spasm of violence that may last decades? No. Do we want to embolden the global jihadist Muslim extremists? No. Do we want to send the wrong signal to our allies that we aren't to be trusted? No.
Rather than opposition to the war in Iraq based on partisan opportunism, maybe the discussion of ending the war in Iraq should center on pressing our military leaders to develop more potent techniques and strategies in order to win the war. Winning a war has always taken longer than losing.
But there is an equal argument that the US pullout from Beirut was the first of many strategic military mistakes made by the US that has contributed to the horrible situation in the Mideast today. The US pullout from Lebanon emboldened Iran and their Lebanese surrogate, Hezbollah. Since then, Iran has become the epicenter of state sponsored Islamic extremism in the Middle East, and Hezbollah has transformed from a minor terrorist group into a large scale army whose existence is devoted to provoking instability in Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Israel, Gaza, as well as in Iraq.
The critics of the Iraq war cry "pull out", as if there are zero consequences. When we pulled out of Viet Nam in 1975, it led to horrors that engulfed the region. The Khmer Rouge killed 1-2 million fellow Cambodians in a genocidal rampage. In Viet Nam, up to a million died in re-education camps and millions fled, mostly by boat. The defeat of the US in Viet Nam emboldened Brezhnev and the Soviets went on a geo-political offensive in the third world for over 10 years. While I am glad we left Viet Nam, there were consequences that we didn't anticipate. I say this as a former anti-Viet Nam war activist.
The pretenses that led the US war in Iraq, whether you think they were morally right or wrong - are totally irrelevant to the discussion of "what do we do now". There is no doubt that Iraq is a mess, but the reality is that the coalition forces are making slow progress that, even today, far exceeds the doomsday pre-war predictions. Do we want our troops out of harms way in Iraq? Of course. Do we want to leave open the possibility that millions could die as a result of a premature withdrawal? No. Do we want to see the US further vilified in the global community for letting Iraq and her neighbors convulse in a spasm of violence that may last decades? No. Do we want to embolden the global jihadist Muslim extremists? No. Do we want to send the wrong signal to our allies that we aren't to be trusted? No.
Rather than opposition to the war in Iraq based on partisan opportunism, maybe the discussion of ending the war in Iraq should center on pressing our military leaders to develop more potent techniques and strategies in order to win the war. Winning a war has always taken longer than losing.
Friday, June 15, 2007
The Silver Lining to the Hamas coup in Gaza
The violent coup in Gaza by the Islamic extremist terrorist group Hamas this past week is a tragic turn of events for the Palestinians and for the prospects for peace in the region. There are, however, useful lessons that the West can learn from this tragedy.
First and foremost, Western pressure to impose democracy doesn't necessarily work the way we expect: The Palestinian people overwhelmingly voted for Hamas, a group whose goal is the total destruction of Israel. We also have learned this lesson in Iraq.
Secondly, giving legitimacy to puppet "heads of state" doesn't work: Facts on the ground should trump our desire for peace. The West wasted substantial diplomatic currency and valuable time by giving former Palestinian PM Abbas undeserved international legitimacy - when he was obviously powerless and not endorsed by the Palestinian people.
Lastly, diplomacy has its limitations: Papering over a conflict with a worthless peace agreement is more damaging than doing nothing.
The Israeli government has clearly stated that it is not pleased with the consolidation of the Gaza strip under Hamas. This takes the likelihood of peaceful two state solution as envisioned by the quartet off the map, and forces all the parties to examine how this deterioration happened (even after the Israelis pulled out of Gaza 3 years ago) – and where the parties go from here.
Of course, the prime suspects in this deterioration are Egypt and Iran. In an effort to give Islamic extremists a place to vent their violent tendencies outside of Egyptian territory, Egypt allowed the large scale smuggling of Islamic fighters from across the Arab world, and allowed the smuggling of massive quantities of arms into Gaza. Iran, on the other hand, trained the fighters and supplied the explosives that were being smuggled into Gaza.
The silver lining to this event is that the pretenses that have allowed this deterioration to develop are gone. Now the conflict may actually reach a climatic end where it is allowed to "burn itself out' - and the possibility of peace could once again emerge.
First and foremost, Western pressure to impose democracy doesn't necessarily work the way we expect: The Palestinian people overwhelmingly voted for Hamas, a group whose goal is the total destruction of Israel. We also have learned this lesson in Iraq.
Secondly, giving legitimacy to puppet "heads of state" doesn't work: Facts on the ground should trump our desire for peace. The West wasted substantial diplomatic currency and valuable time by giving former Palestinian PM Abbas undeserved international legitimacy - when he was obviously powerless and not endorsed by the Palestinian people.
Lastly, diplomacy has its limitations: Papering over a conflict with a worthless peace agreement is more damaging than doing nothing.
The Israeli government has clearly stated that it is not pleased with the consolidation of the Gaza strip under Hamas. This takes the likelihood of peaceful two state solution as envisioned by the quartet off the map, and forces all the parties to examine how this deterioration happened (even after the Israelis pulled out of Gaza 3 years ago) – and where the parties go from here.
Of course, the prime suspects in this deterioration are Egypt and Iran. In an effort to give Islamic extremists a place to vent their violent tendencies outside of Egyptian territory, Egypt allowed the large scale smuggling of Islamic fighters from across the Arab world, and allowed the smuggling of massive quantities of arms into Gaza. Iran, on the other hand, trained the fighters and supplied the explosives that were being smuggled into Gaza.
The silver lining to this event is that the pretenses that have allowed this deterioration to develop are gone. Now the conflict may actually reach a climatic end where it is allowed to "burn itself out' - and the possibility of peace could once again emerge.
Tuesday, June 05, 2007
Resurrect the idea of expelling the Palestinians
As distasteful as the idea of "expelling" a people from one area, and re-settling them in another may be – especially in the current climate of political correctness, the need for Mideast peace and the lack of viable options necessitates legitimizing this idea, if only for the sake of discussion.
No one bats an eye when the press or Iraqi politicians mention moving Sunnis to one district, Shiites to another. The world gave a Nobel peace prize to those who moved Cypriots and Greeks to different sides of Cyprus in order to achieve what negotiations couldn't.
At the end of the day, all the wasted breath on who did what to whom is just an endless cycle of regurgitated propaganda. Israel is a full fledged country, just as legitimate as Australia or the United States. No one is demanding that America give the USA back to the Indians, and I don't see the Australians beating themselves up because they crowded out the Aborigines. At his stage of the world, facts on the ground trump Arab/Muslim sensitivities that can never be satisfied.
If the world's political leaders want the Mideast conflict settled, then they should look for better solutions than what they have put forward to date. A good place to start is for "Palestinian expulsion" to be accepted in the marketplace of ideas. At the very least, just legitimizing the conversation might make the Palestinians realize that the world – and Israel – has a limited amount of patience, and that they will pay a price for their folly. Enough of this catering to the Palestinian's love affair with victimhood.
As for where these expelled Palestinians are to go? That is likely to be a far easier solution than settling the current conflict. It's an Arab problem with an Arab solution. There is no shortage of arable vacant land in the Arab world, and there is no shortage of Arab/Muslim petro-dollars to make the transition easier.
No one bats an eye when the press or Iraqi politicians mention moving Sunnis to one district, Shiites to another. The world gave a Nobel peace prize to those who moved Cypriots and Greeks to different sides of Cyprus in order to achieve what negotiations couldn't.
At the end of the day, all the wasted breath on who did what to whom is just an endless cycle of regurgitated propaganda. Israel is a full fledged country, just as legitimate as Australia or the United States. No one is demanding that America give the USA back to the Indians, and I don't see the Australians beating themselves up because they crowded out the Aborigines. At his stage of the world, facts on the ground trump Arab/Muslim sensitivities that can never be satisfied.
If the world's political leaders want the Mideast conflict settled, then they should look for better solutions than what they have put forward to date. A good place to start is for "Palestinian expulsion" to be accepted in the marketplace of ideas. At the very least, just legitimizing the conversation might make the Palestinians realize that the world – and Israel – has a limited amount of patience, and that they will pay a price for their folly. Enough of this catering to the Palestinian's love affair with victimhood.
As for where these expelled Palestinians are to go? That is likely to be a far easier solution than settling the current conflict. It's an Arab problem with an Arab solution. There is no shortage of arable vacant land in the Arab world, and there is no shortage of Arab/Muslim petro-dollars to make the transition easier.
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing". (Sir Edmund Burke)
In the USA during the 1850s, not all Americans were slave owners, but all slave owners were Americans. The American civil war was the model for good people to come together and act, in order to prevent evil from prevailing. Over 1 million white Northern young men put on the uniform of the Federal government and marched past the Mason Dixon line in order to put an end to slavery in the United States. Over 390,000 Federal troops died and over 275,000 were wounded in action. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, and the North did what it had to do.
During the civil rights era (1955-1968), a wide assortment of Americans - Northerners, Southerners, black and white, Jewish and Christian – conducted boycotts, organized sit-ins, mass marches and freedom rides in order to make sure that all Americans shared equally in the freedoms guaranteed under the US constitution. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, and the American public rose to the challenge.
Not all Germans were Nazis, but all Nazis were Germans. When WW2 was over, Nazi soldiers claimed they were only following orders. German civilians claimed they were innocent victims of Hitler and his Nazi thugs. The reality, of course, is that German civilians did not sufficiently raise their voice in opposition to the Nazi party BEFORE Hitler came to power, didn't march into the streets in opposition to the Nazi party DURING its formulative years, and couldn't do anything about it once Germany had morphed into a full fledged Nazi state. The German people bore total responsibility for the catastrophe that their government perpetrated on the world. All it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing, and the Germans did nothing.
Islamic scholars have said that the modern day phenomenon of Islamic extremism can be traced back to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979. Arab terrorism is not necessarily the same as Muslim extremist terrorism, and the distinction is important if one wants to understand how such a violent form of Islam could develop. Arab nationalists have long viewed the very existence of Israel as an insult to the Arab world, and for decades the Muslim/Arab capitals of the Mideast have sanctioned "acts of terrorism" against Israel as legitimate expressions of "resistance". Now, the homegrown "resistance fighters" whom the Arab world groomed in conflicts ranging from Afghanistan to Chechnya to Israel over the last past 50 years have – for lack of legitimate alternatives in their home countries – adopted a Jihadist version of Islam to justify continuing the mayhem. The world, unfortunately, turned a blind eye to terrorism as long as it was aimed only at Israel. THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE "GOOD TERRORISM". Aided by western technology and endless amounts of oil money, Islamic extremism has reached a tipping point and gone global – and is now aiming it's sights on fellow Muslims as well - which proves the point that if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of Muslims are regular people like you and me, and want nothing to do with Islamic extremists or Jihadists. Unfortunately, most of the terrorism around the globe is being committed in the name of Islam. Many people see the rise of Islamic extremism in the same light as the rise of Nazi fascism in 1938, and we have a moral responsibility to speak out and awaken the public. In this day and age of "political correctness", our message is sometimes intentionally mis-construed as promoting "Islamiphobia" by Islamists who are determined to control the public debate. In Europe, Islamic apologists have risen in righteous indignation – and sometimes in spasms of widespread violence - over ANY criticism of Muslim extremists, despite the bloody body of evidence strewn across the globe (Bali, London, New York, Moscow, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Dafur, Turkey, Thailand etc.).
Many Islamic apologists prefer to express their revulsion with Islamic extremism by claiming that their "peaceful religion" is being hijacked by a small minority. My response to them is that if Islam has been hijacked, then moderate Muslims have a moral responsibility to end the hijacking and reclaim their faith. The US war against Islamic extremism is not winnable in the classical sense. There are no clear fields of battle, no capitals to conquer, and no leaders to surrender. Our military can keep Islamic extremist "on their heels" for as long as our country gives them support - but an American public that is "unaware" of the magnitude of this threat runs the risk of losing its resolve. Extremists aren't attacking us for territory, or material wealth. They are attacking our way of life. One only has to look at Britain or France to see what complacence and appeasement will produce in response to Muslim extremism. They are threatening the very core of the Western Judeo-Christian values upon which America was founded – democracy, freedom and the rule of law. If we underestimate this threat, if we don't understand this threat, then we run the risk of letting this menace strengthen beyond our capacity to contain it.
If there is any legitimate criticism of the way we are currently waging the war on Islamic extremism today - and there is much to criticize, it is the fact that the average American citizen isn't "engaged" in this war on ANY level. During WW2, everyone on the home front was "chipping in" and doing their part for "the cause". That's why we are here today. The Memphis Branch of HonestReporting wants to educate and mobilize the Mid-South community to support our government, to support our troops, support our allies, and give individuals a tangible way to be a part of the struggle to defeat this enemy. There are sign up sheets in the back of the room if you would like to join our organization.
If it's true that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing", then we want to make sure evil fails.
Thank you very much.
During the civil rights era (1955-1968), a wide assortment of Americans - Northerners, Southerners, black and white, Jewish and Christian – conducted boycotts, organized sit-ins, mass marches and freedom rides in order to make sure that all Americans shared equally in the freedoms guaranteed under the US constitution. The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing, and the American public rose to the challenge.
Not all Germans were Nazis, but all Nazis were Germans. When WW2 was over, Nazi soldiers claimed they were only following orders. German civilians claimed they were innocent victims of Hitler and his Nazi thugs. The reality, of course, is that German civilians did not sufficiently raise their voice in opposition to the Nazi party BEFORE Hitler came to power, didn't march into the streets in opposition to the Nazi party DURING its formulative years, and couldn't do anything about it once Germany had morphed into a full fledged Nazi state. The German people bore total responsibility for the catastrophe that their government perpetrated on the world. All it takes for evil to prevail is for good people to do nothing, and the Germans did nothing.
Islamic scholars have said that the modern day phenomenon of Islamic extremism can be traced back to the overthrow of the Shah of Iran in 1979. Arab terrorism is not necessarily the same as Muslim extremist terrorism, and the distinction is important if one wants to understand how such a violent form of Islam could develop. Arab nationalists have long viewed the very existence of Israel as an insult to the Arab world, and for decades the Muslim/Arab capitals of the Mideast have sanctioned "acts of terrorism" against Israel as legitimate expressions of "resistance". Now, the homegrown "resistance fighters" whom the Arab world groomed in conflicts ranging from Afghanistan to Chechnya to Israel over the last past 50 years have – for lack of legitimate alternatives in their home countries – adopted a Jihadist version of Islam to justify continuing the mayhem. The world, unfortunately, turned a blind eye to terrorism as long as it was aimed only at Israel. THERE IS NO JUSTIFIABLE "GOOD TERRORISM". Aided by western technology and endless amounts of oil money, Islamic extremism has reached a tipping point and gone global – and is now aiming it's sights on fellow Muslims as well - which proves the point that if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas.
I have no doubt that the vast majority of Muslims are regular people like you and me, and want nothing to do with Islamic extremists or Jihadists. Unfortunately, most of the terrorism around the globe is being committed in the name of Islam. Many people see the rise of Islamic extremism in the same light as the rise of Nazi fascism in 1938, and we have a moral responsibility to speak out and awaken the public. In this day and age of "political correctness", our message is sometimes intentionally mis-construed as promoting "Islamiphobia" by Islamists who are determined to control the public debate. In Europe, Islamic apologists have risen in righteous indignation – and sometimes in spasms of widespread violence - over ANY criticism of Muslim extremists, despite the bloody body of evidence strewn across the globe (Bali, London, New York, Moscow, the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia, Dafur, Turkey, Thailand etc.).
Many Islamic apologists prefer to express their revulsion with Islamic extremism by claiming that their "peaceful religion" is being hijacked by a small minority. My response to them is that if Islam has been hijacked, then moderate Muslims have a moral responsibility to end the hijacking and reclaim their faith. The US war against Islamic extremism is not winnable in the classical sense. There are no clear fields of battle, no capitals to conquer, and no leaders to surrender. Our military can keep Islamic extremist "on their heels" for as long as our country gives them support - but an American public that is "unaware" of the magnitude of this threat runs the risk of losing its resolve. Extremists aren't attacking us for territory, or material wealth. They are attacking our way of life. One only has to look at Britain or France to see what complacence and appeasement will produce in response to Muslim extremism. They are threatening the very core of the Western Judeo-Christian values upon which America was founded – democracy, freedom and the rule of law. If we underestimate this threat, if we don't understand this threat, then we run the risk of letting this menace strengthen beyond our capacity to contain it.
If there is any legitimate criticism of the way we are currently waging the war on Islamic extremism today - and there is much to criticize, it is the fact that the average American citizen isn't "engaged" in this war on ANY level. During WW2, everyone on the home front was "chipping in" and doing their part for "the cause". That's why we are here today. The Memphis Branch of HonestReporting wants to educate and mobilize the Mid-South community to support our government, to support our troops, support our allies, and give individuals a tangible way to be a part of the struggle to defeat this enemy. There are sign up sheets in the back of the room if you would like to join our organization.
If it's true that "the only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing", then we want to make sure evil fails.
Thank you very much.
Friday, April 20, 2007
Muslim claims that the USA media and police are biased against Muslims/Arabs
It is deceitful of Muslim commentators to claim that the media should have called the Virginia Tech shooter (32 dead) a “terrorist” instead of a “mass murderer, insinuating a media/law enforcement bias against Muslims. The dictionary calls terrorism an “act of violence with the intent of intimidation, and is often part of a larger terror campaign meant to advance a religious or political point of view”.
July 4th, 2002: Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, an Egyptian, opened fire at Los Angeles International Airport while standing in line at the ticket counter of Israel's El Al Airlines killing two and wounding four others before an airline security officer shot him dead. Federal, law enforcement and city officials said it appeared the shooting was an isolated incident, with nothing to suggest otherwise. “There is no indication of any terrorism connection in this matter”, said FBI spokesman Matt McLaughlin.
May 23rd, 2002: A Pensacola, Florida, man opened fire at a ticket counter at the main airport in New Orleans, killing one person and wounding another. Authorities said Patrick Gott, a Muslim man, told them he opened fire because people had made fun of his turban at a restaurant... Officials said the shooting did not appear to be related to terrorism and that Gott acted alone.
These are two examples of Muslims committing similar acts of violence. I would contend that the 7/4/02 incident – the Egyptian who attacked the Israeli Air Line ticket counter -was a terrorist act because of the Israeli victims, as well as testimony that came forward regarding his radicalized Muslim religious disposition. In the 5/23/02 incident, the victims were completely random, the perpetrator’s background indicated mental problems, and therefore there was no ulterior motive other than insane rage over some comments about his turban.
Contrary to Muslim commentators asserting media/law enforcement bias, I would contend that the Federal government has clearly gone out of its way to be politically correct in these incidents – opting to call them both “random acts of violence” - despite the glaring distinction between the two.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/07/04/la.airport.shooting/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/23/national/main509955.shtml
July 4th, 2002: Hesham Mohamed Hadayet, an Egyptian, opened fire at Los Angeles International Airport while standing in line at the ticket counter of Israel's El Al Airlines killing two and wounding four others before an airline security officer shot him dead. Federal, law enforcement and city officials said it appeared the shooting was an isolated incident, with nothing to suggest otherwise. “There is no indication of any terrorism connection in this matter”, said FBI spokesman Matt McLaughlin.
May 23rd, 2002: A Pensacola, Florida, man opened fire at a ticket counter at the main airport in New Orleans, killing one person and wounding another. Authorities said Patrick Gott, a Muslim man, told them he opened fire because people had made fun of his turban at a restaurant... Officials said the shooting did not appear to be related to terrorism and that Gott acted alone.
These are two examples of Muslims committing similar acts of violence. I would contend that the 7/4/02 incident – the Egyptian who attacked the Israeli Air Line ticket counter -was a terrorist act because of the Israeli victims, as well as testimony that came forward regarding his radicalized Muslim religious disposition. In the 5/23/02 incident, the victims were completely random, the perpetrator’s background indicated mental problems, and therefore there was no ulterior motive other than insane rage over some comments about his turban.
Contrary to Muslim commentators asserting media/law enforcement bias, I would contend that the Federal government has clearly gone out of its way to be politically correct in these incidents – opting to call them both “random acts of violence” - despite the glaring distinction between the two.
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/07/04/la.airport.shooting/
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/05/23/national/main509955.shtml
Wednesday, April 18, 2007
IRAN making a mockery of the United Nations…again…and again…and again
On April 9, 2007 there was a United Nations "believe-it-or-not" moment that was fit for the comic books. At the same time that Iran's President Ahmadinejad declared his country was now capable of industrial-scale uranium enrichment AND had kidnapped and imprisoned a dozen British sailors, the U.N. re-elected Iran as a vice chairman of the U.N. Disarmament Commission. The very U.N. body charged with promoting nuclear nonproliferation installed in a senior position the state that the Security Council recently declared violated its nonproliferation resolutions.
In Iran, Ahmadinejad gloated at the Natanz nuclear facility: "With great pride, I announce as of today our dear country is among the countries of the world that produces nuclear fuel on an industrial scale" (in violation of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty- NPT). At the same time, the Iranian vice chairman of the U.N. Disarmament Commission, Seyed Mohammad Ali Robatjazi, railed against "noncompliance with the NPT by the United States" and "the Zionist lobby."
It took the U.N. a mere five days to consider Iran "rehabilitated" after the British kidnap victims made it home alive. Just the night before on April 8, Faye Turney, the only female victim, revealed her Iranian abductors stripped her to her underwear, caged her in a tiny, freezing cell, and subjected her to mental torture such as leading her to believe that her death was imminent.
This is not simply a very bad joke. The U.N. is considered by many as the go-to address for international progress in the world today. Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, declared at a hearing on U.N. reform in February that "the U.N. provides vital support to core U.S. foreign-policy initiatives" including on Iran and the way forward is to "ratchet up" our level of diplomacy there."
Looks like the only "ratcheting up" is the hostility aimed squarely at the USA and Israel. Congressman Lantos and his close friend, former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, have long been drinking from the same well. The "reformed" Human Rights Council was Annan's creation. Lantos is the leading advocate of the United States joining the Human Rights Council - where presumably we could jump up and down while exercising one vote out of 47. Annan, of his own volition, went to Tehran last September and urged the world not to isolate Iran immediately after the Iranian president had ignored a Security Council deadline to suspend its nuclear activities. Lantos confessed to the House Committee at the end of February that he has been begging for a visa to go to Iran for the past ten years and "will be among the first ones to do so once this visa is granted."
Lantos was pleased with his recent trip, along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to Syria. Obviously, the U.N. shares his view that one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism ought to be a welcome player on the world stage. Following the election on Monday, April 9th, of Iran as vice chairman, the U.N. Disarmament Commission elected Syria as its rapporteur to investigate the issue of nuclear nonproliferation non-compliance and report back to the commission.
The line between U.N. diplomacy and farce has been crossed. As long as the UN is held hostage to the rantings of third world dictatorships and banana republics who use the UN as an anti-US platform, we should chart our own course - with our true allies - by strengthening and expanding NATO.
In Iran, Ahmadinejad gloated at the Natanz nuclear facility: "With great pride, I announce as of today our dear country is among the countries of the world that produces nuclear fuel on an industrial scale" (in violation of the nuclear nonproliferation treaty- NPT). At the same time, the Iranian vice chairman of the U.N. Disarmament Commission, Seyed Mohammad Ali Robatjazi, railed against "noncompliance with the NPT by the United States" and "the Zionist lobby."
It took the U.N. a mere five days to consider Iran "rehabilitated" after the British kidnap victims made it home alive. Just the night before on April 8, Faye Turney, the only female victim, revealed her Iranian abductors stripped her to her underwear, caged her in a tiny, freezing cell, and subjected her to mental torture such as leading her to believe that her death was imminent.
This is not simply a very bad joke. The U.N. is considered by many as the go-to address for international progress in the world today. Congressman Tom Lantos (D-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs, declared at a hearing on U.N. reform in February that "the U.N. provides vital support to core U.S. foreign-policy initiatives" including on Iran and the way forward is to "ratchet up" our level of diplomacy there."
Looks like the only "ratcheting up" is the hostility aimed squarely at the USA and Israel. Congressman Lantos and his close friend, former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, have long been drinking from the same well. The "reformed" Human Rights Council was Annan's creation. Lantos is the leading advocate of the United States joining the Human Rights Council - where presumably we could jump up and down while exercising one vote out of 47. Annan, of his own volition, went to Tehran last September and urged the world not to isolate Iran immediately after the Iranian president had ignored a Security Council deadline to suspend its nuclear activities. Lantos confessed to the House Committee at the end of February that he has been begging for a visa to go to Iran for the past ten years and "will be among the first ones to do so once this visa is granted."
Lantos was pleased with his recent trip, along with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, to Syria. Obviously, the U.N. shares his view that one of the world's leading state sponsors of terrorism ought to be a welcome player on the world stage. Following the election on Monday, April 9th, of Iran as vice chairman, the U.N. Disarmament Commission elected Syria as its rapporteur to investigate the issue of nuclear nonproliferation non-compliance and report back to the commission.
The line between U.N. diplomacy and farce has been crossed. As long as the UN is held hostage to the rantings of third world dictatorships and banana republics who use the UN as an anti-US platform, we should chart our own course - with our true allies - by strengthening and expanding NATO.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)