The promise by Obama in his AIPAC speech to "personally" take part in a renewal of Israeli-"Palestinian" negotiations is worrisome. Very. It should fill everyone with anxiety. For everything about Obama until now -- the people he has allowed to tell him all about "Palestine" (Rashid Khalidi), the people who were his early financial backers (Anton Rezko, who in turn is backed by an Iraqi billionaire), his early political backers (Rev. Wright, possibly Louis Farrakhan), his choice of foreign-policy advisers (Zbigniew Brezezinski, and Samantha Powers), his endorsement by Jimmy Carter, all point in one direction.
And his endorsement of one undivided capital is "just words," until we see exactly what he means by this. And he should be asked. Does he mean Jerusalem as the Israelis now define it, and include the Old City? And what else does he mean?
Given all of Obama's connections in the past, given that he has not once spoken out about the texts and tenets of Islam, and not shown that he understands why the Iraq war makes little sense (it makes little sense because its goals as now set by the Administration will not weaken the Camp of Islam and Jihad; it would be far better to allow ethnic and sectarian fissures to fester and to widen), but is simply opposed to it for possibly all the wrong chomskyan reasons, the burden is on him.
Those who care about Israel's wellbeing should be doing two things. They should be attempting to persuade McCain to get unstuck from Tarbaby Iraq, and to begin to understand why the Iraq venture does not, and cannot, have much of an effect on the Money Weapon, Da'wa, and demographic conquest, in Western Europe, or elsewhere.
And the second thing they should be doing is trying to persuade Barack Obama that they don't want him involved, "personally" or otherwise, in any negotiations between Israel and the Arabs. Every single bit of peace-processing by any Americans has always led to pressure on the Israelis, and a cruel blackening of their image. Every single attempt has been one more effort where the Americans give credence to a false view of the Arab war against Israel, a war without end, a war that has no "solution" (as some seem to think it does, and even seem to assume that it does, with that silly phrase "the two-state solution").
There is no "solution," but that does not mean that open war is necessarily inevitable. If Israel stays strong, and overwhelmingly so, the principle of deterrence will continue to work. Egypt does not refrain from going to war because it "made peace" with Israel. It does not go to war for the same reason that Syria doesn't, or Saudi Arabia doesn’t. The consequences of such an act -- the damage that Israel could and would inflict -- are too great, and the Egyptian government knows it.
But every single negotiation and bit of peace-processing, every attempt to come to grips with what some American negotiators, such as the comical Aaron Miller, like to call, breathlessly, "thefourcoreissues....settlementsrefugeesjerusalemsecurity" -- misses the point. There are not, as the aaron-millers believe, "four core issues" -- settlemenets, refugees, Jerusalem, security. There is only one issue. And that issue is Islam, and the view that Islam inculcates, the view deeply imbedded in the texts and tenets of Islam: the view that no Infidel nation-state, whatever its size or status, can be permitted to exist on land that was once possessed by Muslims. And that is particularly true if the Infidels in question are the Jews, who under Muslim rule were seen as weak, and therefore to be treated with appropriate contempt, for they had no powerful friends in Western Christendom (as the Christians could at least think they did). And still worse, Israel is located right between the two wings of what the Arabs regard as the heart of Islamdom, the Arab Muslim domain.
Barack Obama, whose father was a Muslim, whose stepfather was a Muslim, who himself was treated as a Muslim when he lived in Indonesia from the ages of 6 to 10, does not see the necessity of learning about Islam, at least without the officious intervention of apologists such as the assorted espositos and MESA-Nostrans, those on the Saudi or other Arab payroll, or those who, being Muslims themselves, or having entered the field, as so many of the non-Muslims in it have, because they are deeply attracted to the idea of Islam. Such apologists would be for Obama dangerous guides indeed, if he is not capable of seeing why he needs to distance himself from Islam -- for the sake not only of those whose support he asks for as he presumes to claim a high office that requires of him the ability to both instruct and protect the citizens, but also so that Muslims do not think they have a secret friend in the White House. That might lead to all kinds of dangerous rashness -- especially since he doesn't understand as yet that the threat or menace of Islamic Jihad is not a fiction dreamed up by right-wing crazies, but has been a fact of world geopolitics for the past 1350 years, and in the past, before the Great Age of Inhibition, all of the keenest minds, from Hume to Tocqueville to Churchill, saw and wrote with apprehension about the nature of Islam.
He has time to educate himself. He is now done with any need to placate Farrakhan, or Wright, or Pfleger, or to limit his learning to that smyler with the knyf under the cloke, a former propagandist for the PLO in Beirut, so we are told -- and the recipient of the no-courses-and-no-waiting D. Phil. that Albert Hourani used to hand out to Arab and Muslim graduate students without too much fuss, with their favorite topic being, bien entendu, "The Construction of a Palestinian Identity."
He's got to do this. This undivided capitol stuff just won't do. He's got to understand what prompts the endless Arab and Muslim war against Israel, because he should not repeat the mistakes of the past presidents, including Bill Clinton, in devoting time and energy to an impossible and depleting and pointless task that can only help the Arabs and weaken Israel (and make many enemies in this country, who will not forget in 2012). He should forget about Israel and the Arabs, and concentrate on the big questions -- the menace of Islam, and the instruments of Jihad that really count, such as Da'wa and deployment of the Money Weapon in a Western Europe about which Barack Obama seems to take no interest. He has said he wants to spend $50 billion in Africa, and there is a very great third-world element to his outlook that, while hardly surprising, is unsettling and potentially dangerous for those who still think the West matters, and the heart of the West, without which the West has no meaning, is Europe.
Will he rise to the occasion? Or will he sink into the swamp of that peace-processing that in and of itself inevitably becomes anti-Israel, for it is Israel that is always asked to give up the tangible for the intangible promise, and Israel that, in every single agreement with the Arabs it has ever made, has scrupulously fulfilled its obligations, only to see the other side breach its own in any way it can, and to do so without the United States stepping in to remind that country that it did, after all, agree to this or to that. Egypt has failed to live up to the only thing it was asked to do under the Camp David Accords, which was to encourage friendly relations and an end to hostility. Mubarak has only once, and only at the border, gone to Israel -- save for Rabin's funeral. The Der-Stuermer-like campaign in the Egyptian press, and on television, including a series based on "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," does not constitute living up to the solemn commitments Egypt -- not Saint Sadat but Egypt -- made under the Camp David Accords. And not once has the American government, which forced the Israelis to make concession after concession, dared to remind Egypt of all this, despite Egypt’s being the recipient so far of $65 billion in disguised Jizyah. For "Jizyah" is the money that is given by Infidels out of fear, and that Muslims receive as by right, without any felt gratitude -- which exactly describes the aid given by the Americans to Egypt.
No one who worries either about Israel's fate, or about the fate of the Infidels, should be consoled by this speech. Obama will have to address, and intelligently, the texts and tenets and attitudes and atmospherics of Islam. He has to offer a strategy for dealing with campaigns of Da'wa, for ending the Money Weapon -- with the Saudis alone having spent nearly $100 billion to promote Islam's spread in Infidel lands, not least by building mosques and madrasas and conducting propaganda campaigns, and buying up academic centers, and employing a small army of Western hirelings -- ex-diplomats, ex-C.I.A. agents, businessmen eager for contracts, journalists, teachers.
He's got to do this. He's got to see Islam plain, and not mimic this Administration's failure to have thought things through, that still rules the day. For that would make even many now applauding his AIPAC speech rue the day.
By god, if he looked at this task in the right way, he would see that it is manageable, if only he doesn't get distracted and sinks into the swamp of "Israeli-'Palestinian' negotiations, and hudnas, and treaties of Al-Hudaibiyya that the Muslim side has a right and a duty to breach whenver it can.
I'd put up right here a dozen things that could be done to divide and demoralize the Camp of Islam and Jihad -- for less than a billion dollars. And that compares favorably with the 2-3 trillion that the fiasco in Iraq, based on messianic sentimentalism (for how else to describe the project of bringing "freedom" to "ordinary moms and dads" in the Middle East?), except that I'd rather not allow others in the enemy camp to listen in.
Yes, Obama has to do all of this.
And so, too, of course, does McCain.
I'm gobsmacked and flummoxed. He's relying on his complete control of the fawning media to not point out how disingenuous his new position is in light of, well, Obama's entire life and belief system. It worked like a charm. I assume HAMAS was winking and throwing "say no more" elbows when they said they don't like him any more. HAMAS understands he has to lie to get the job, as all Ikhwan groups lie to get their stealth agenda implemented.
Mr. Fitzgerald....no one wants to be disturbed with this kind of truth.
Too many are seized, as Lynne Olson described very neatly of the time from 9/1/39 to 4/40, with the need to believe in another kind of reality, and to think that Obama's hopes can come to some kind of fruition which will allow us all to think about much more pleasant things.
That NEED is the enemy.
We are the harbingers of an awful truth. We are the 'cawing' crows of ugliness and compulsory action picking at the puppy's run over corpse in the road.
That is the secret of Obama's march.
And you want the public to act in the knowledge that in Israel vs muslims there NOTHING TO DISCUSS?
"Mr. Fitzgerald....no one wants to be disturbed with this kind of truth." --posted above
Right. And who cares about that unpleasant stuff when you can be on Park Avenue at Caroline Kennedy's swanky digs for a private fundraiser?
Good Grief. I believe a monster has been created, and his name is Hussein Obama.
The future looks very very scary from here. A muslim in the White House? And soon a muslim King of England? It's not for myself I mind so much, because I won't be around to see the horrible, final fruition of the islamic grand plan. But my children will be, and I dread the future they will inherit.
Sadly, I think America is at least 4 years away from demanding a presidential nominee in either the Republican and Democrat parties that understands their small part in the world's 1300+ y.o. war and the need to outlaw islam in our country as a hostile form of government (rather than one of many religions to be tolerated under our Constitution). Thank God the guiding principles of islam won't allow it's followers to sit quietly and outbreed us infidels and then take over by voting to change our constitution.
Hugh correctly typed islam can't rest knowing infidels are living on land once owned by muslims. They wont be able to not burn Europe and take it back. Maybe America will wake up then.
I for one loved Robert Spencer's answer to the Libertarian party radio talk show host when asked if he thinks of himself as more of a Libertarian than a Republican or Democrat. He answered that this war against islam will take the combined strength of all Christians, Jews and all other non-muslim faiths and philosophies to win and he belongs more to a "non-muslim" party.
Osama bin Laden is trying to get the shia and sunni's (sworn to murder each other before they turn to us), to stop fighting amongst themselves and fight us first. We have to see this call to mass an army great enough to beat us and stop our infighting and turn our collective eye to the fight.
Maybe America will see the bloodshed in Europe (and possibly in America) over the next 4 years and be ready then to nominate Robert Spencer for president in the newly formed non-muslim party...and he'll win.
"And soon a muslim King of England?"
How could that happen?
I'm one of those who believes that enormously-inconvenient Diana, Princess of Wales, was murdered due to her alliance that summer with a Muslim, and hinting that she was pregnant by him. Meaning that Wm and Harry would have a Mohammedan half-sibling. Plus, the Windsors hate Mohammed al-Fayd, and Dodi is his son.
No matter how much Dhimmi Charles loves Mohammedanism, the Royal Family would not allow a Muslim in the relative pool. No. Way.
I don't believe Diana would have been killed if she hadn't been frolicking all summer with Dodi Fayd, and hinting to reporters about a "big surprise." She was already on her ex-Inlaws' hit list, but this Muslim escapade just hurried things up.
"Intrigue" has long been Royal Families' middle name. Richard III had his 2 nephews murdered so he could be King. Ahead of him in line to the throne, they were mighty inconvenient. Protestant Elizabeth I was almost offed many times while her
Catholic sister Mary was on the throne for 3 years. And there's so many other examples, including in Italy and France. Yes, they kill their own, and I believe they killed Diana. The Last Straw being her Muslim boyfriend/fiance.
So, I don't see how there could be a Muslim King of England?
darcy,
No child of Diana's by Dodi would ever be in the line of succession, even if Charles and his entire line were killed. If you want to worry about England having a Muslim king, then Charles is the biggest threat.
Barack Obama is not a Muslim. And I believe that he may believe he never was a Muslim, even if others regarded him as such, and in any case, what would it mean to "be a Muslim" as a young child? It could mean the same thing as Ibn Warraq or Ayaan Hirsi having been born into, and raised within Islam. That's not the point. The point is that most the world, Muslim and non-Muslim, consists of people who do not always know what to make of this whole business. And that can lead to problems of a sort that Barack Obama and his advisers, in their quick dismissal of those who worry about his "being a Muslim," have not envisaged, much less thought through, or figured out ways to handle.
He has to deliver a speech about this, distancing himself from Islam. Is it fair to demand this? Yes, under the circumstances, it is. Given his father, his father-in-law, his four (formative? informative?) years in Indonesia where he was treated as, regarded as, expected to behave as, a Muslim child, given his history of receiving tuition about the Arab-Israeli "conflict" from Rashid Khalidi, given his early, campaign-era choice of foreign policy advisers, one is entitled to think he has a special duty or burden to disabuse those who, in this country, among those he presumably wishes to instruct and protect, have these worries.
But it is not only American citizens who need their fears -- even in some cases their hysteria -- allayed. Things are happening in Western Europe, eyes are being opened, alarm is spreading, as every country, no matter what its political system, whether it is in France or Great Britain, Germany or Spain, or such countries as Denmark and The Netherlands that have elevated easygoing tolerance to a state religion, realizes that its Muslim immigrants present a problem -- the same problem everywhere in the Infidel lands, or Bilad al-kufr, and that, furthermore, it is only the Muslim immigrants, not Chinese, not Hindus, not Vietnamese, not black African Christians, not Andean Indians who manage to play their flutes on the streets of Europe, who present this problem, and that it does not get better, but worse with each successive generation.
The European leaders will wish to speak about this problem not only among themselves, but with the highest officials of the American government. In order to do this, to speak in private, but also candidly, they need to be sure that the kinds of things they will talk about -- such as, for example, halting and reversing demographic conquest of their lands, a concept that may still strike many in this country as absurd, but only if they have not been paying attention. And they will be worried, or could be worried, if the problem of Barack Obama's connection, or unclear connection, or possible residual sympathies, or simply his own conceivable misunderstanding of Islam, based on vague filial piety or happy memories of Indonesia.
Obama and his advisers must think about his responsibilites, and of how leaders of countries in Western Europe, or of other countries -- India, say, or Thailand, or the Philipppines -- will worry, and possibly keep their own counsel.
And they should also worry about a belief, in the Muslim lands, where every sort of crazy theory, both about conspiracies by enemies, but also about the mysterious workings of Allah (who may have decided to put a Muslim in charge of the Great Satan, at this very moment in history -- and just for the primitive masses, in Iran or Pakistan or in the Arab lands, to hear that "Barack Hussein Obama" is President of the United States will lead to all kinds of misunderstandings on the Arab street, the Pakistani avenue, the Iranian bazaar, misunderstandings that could be dangerous.
Even if you and I and David Axelrod all realize how silly these apprehensions on the part of both some American citizens, and European leaders, might be, or how baseless the swelling triumphalism of Muslim masses who might well assume they have a a fellow Muslim, even if a "secret" Muslim, in charge of the White House, that isn't what counts. What counts is the need, by word and deed for Barack Obama to relieve those misapprehensions, and puncture that swelling triumphalism.
It's a problem. It won't go away.
Hugh: Will he rise to the occasion? Or will he sink into the swamp...
What evidence there is, points to sink.
I am not a McCain fan, but with a few alterations he could rise to the occasion...I would like to ask them both one question (at least to start), and that is, 'is Allah God'? Please explain in detail...I would also like to hear Bush's opinion of that.
This is an important question because the politicians opinion of that will effect his attitudes, and actions toward, or about Islam.
Islam loses all credibility if Allah is not God.
This is why there is shirk. Allah can't be the supreme being if he has a partner, or equal, it's impossible. JW contributors have read, and written much to show that Allah cannot be, and is not 'God'.
If McCain, Obama and Bush, can't get that part right, they won't get the rest of it right either.
We would be better off with a religion hating atheist in charge. That person would not be prostituted to the idea that all religions are good and equal, and must be catered to equally, especially Islam, who is catered to especially...
All the ties to Nation of Islam concerning his campaign workers, and his deafening silence concerning his pro Hamas and pali ties. Listening to his wife's oddball comments don't make much sense until you've listened close to Farrakhan's rhetoric.
And you wonder why people are paranoid?
Obama is no muslim, and the mudslinging, Obama derangement INCREASES HIS CREDIBILITY.
"Obama is no muslim, and the mudslinging, Obama derangement INCREASES HIS CREDIBILITY."
-- from a posting above
That problem has been addressed in my piece. But I went beyond agreeing that he is not a Muslim, to point out other things, many other things, that are worrisome, and said that he has a duty, given all of the misunderstanding and misapprehension, among those whose votes he seeks, but also among those who, were he to become President, he would have to confer with on such matters as the instruemnts of Jihad -- not merely that of terrorism, which is all the Bush Administration apparently can comprehend, or dares to deal with -- such as campaigns of carefully-targetted Da'wa, deployment of a Money Weapon that amounts, now, to tens of billions of dollars in direct expenditures, and subtle use of OPEC trillions to force Infidel countries into all kinds of dangerous acts of dhimmitude, and -- most important -- demographic conquest by Muslims of the countries of Western Europe. And if Obama is not deeply concerned about, does not think about, the West (as in "the survival of the West") but has been molded by, or come to accept, quite a different, tiersmondisant, worldview (and he talks of giviing black Africa $50 billion in aid, talks of how much he undertands about the world because, you see, he spent time as a child in Indonesia -- but not a word about Europe, and I don't think he's travelled there even once). I don't know to what degree Obama was simply using, for his own political ends, Rev. Wright and Trinity Church.
I don't know to what extent he has imbibed, or shares, the whole business of Black Liberation Theology and all that that implies, including a certain indifference, or even hostility, to the fate of what Rev. Wright, and Louis Farrakhan (Rev. Wright's ideology was that of Farrakhan, but within the more mainstream, and therefore more acceptable, context of a Christian church). might call "white" Europe. But I do know that a President who does not keenly feel the need to prevent the islamization of Western Europe, because he does not keenly feel what the West is all about, and what it has accomplished in art, science, literature, political thought, the advancement of individual freedom, would be a disaster. Does Barack Obama feel all that keenly, or is he is indifferent, or does he think the historic heart of Western civilization deserves no special solicitousness from the President of the United States?
It's an important question. And it won't go away.
Hey, Hugh,
How about a President you can't trust to support Israel?
You did see this video, didn't you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZaD_SOR-mXo
Old Joan Baez Song (Not all moonbats are equal)
Isaac And Abraham
Hard times, hard times in Canaan land
Trouble in the mind of a man
A voice came whispering softly to him:
"Go offer, offer up the land"
Abraham took his only son
High up on a hill
His test of faith had finally come
As the wind, the wind begin to chill
Cold steel, cold steel in the father's hand
Tears falling from the sky
The angels, the angels did not understand
Why the righteous, the righteous boy should die
Then Abraham most mysteriously
Laid down that deadly knife
Said, "My darlin' son, I wish I was the one
Who spared, who spared your precious life."
Oh Isaac
The light of all your days
Will shine upon this mountain high
And never never fade away
And never fade away.
Obama is the guy who gave a perfect Arabic rendition of the Call to Prayer in a interview to Nicholas Kristof and also stated its "one of the prettiest sounds on earth at sunset".
That alone should serve warning to those who think he's amenable to what those at Jihadwatch write about on a daily basis.
To get a better idea about Obama:
1)Read his two books. I know they suck but it gives a window into who Obama is. In them he has nothing good to say about American and the west in general. He also made it clear he doesn't like whites. He also divorced himself from his white half as well. He does't see himself as mixed race but a Black Man.
He's all about identity politics.
He'll sell out Israel and the west the first chance he gets. He's Carter without the brains and general decency.
2)Look at his personal history. In his time at Columbia and later Harvard and afterwards he's associated with nothing but Marxists and black radicals.
3) Look at his long time friends, its a rouges gallery of anti-semites, racists, crooks, ex-terrorists and Marxists.
IMO he's more likely to give Hamas and Iran MFN status than to work against them.
This guy is a disaster and threat to national security period.
I can only hope and pray McCain stops him.
HUGH: "[the Iraq war] makes little sense because its goals as now set by the Administration will not weaken the Camp of Islam and Jihad; it would be far better to allow ethnic and sectarian fissures to fester and to widen."
This is written - here as on dozens of previous occasions - as if it is the unvarnished truth. US abandonment of Iraq may indeed result in the festering and widening of Muslim ethnic and sectarian fissures. But just as likely, it may result in the empowerment of the most fanatical elements in the Islamic world and a dramatic furthering of the cause of Jihad.
What's most UNBELIEVABLE is HOW MUCH of the
Media,the KOOL-AID Drinkers, and all those HYPNOTIZED by "Barack's Excellent Adventure" don't want to see THE TRUTH about their FALSE MESSIAH! "Counter-Jihad" ,a Pillar of OUR NATIONAL SECURITY, does NOT HAVE A FRIEND IN OBAMA!
Obama said things that his AIPAC audience either did not notice, or chose not to notice, or kept their fleeting worries to themselves, perhaps not even mentioning them later on to others who had so enthusiastically greeted the speech. After all, they want, do they not, so desperately to believe that things will be alright, that Israel will be alright, that they have nothing to fear. But really. Obama’s support for an "individed capitol" is standard election-year fare. Why, I’d bet even Jimmy Carter came close to promising that. And don’t candidates, even the ones who are elected, that they will promptly move the American Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem in order that there may be "no ambiguity" about "where we stand." And then these politicians are wildly, excitedly, too-trustingly given standing ovations at AIPAC and before similar audiences. And then, of course, they never do.
Obama referred to "the Palestinian people." Stop right there. Yes, I know all kinds of people use that phrase, unthinkingly. But Obama can think. Axelrod can think. They might have taken this occasion to daringly signal, by simply the demotion of the word “Palestinian” to adjective, and the addition of one noun, to have transformed the discussion. He, Obama, might have talked, with an impact that would have been historic, of the “Palestinian Arabs.” But he didn’t – of course McCain hasn’t either.
Apparently he has not yet given any thought to whether this is indeed a separate people, with a distinct language, culture, religion, and so on, or whether, just perhaps, there may be evidence (oh, there is), that the sudden appearance of this "Palestinian people" after the Six-Day War can be explained by the need, after that defeat, for the Arabs to go back to the old genocidal drawing-board, and now realizing that Israel could not immediately be destroyed militarily, as they had hoped, they would have to begin to convince the West to help them push Isreal back to more manageable dimensions, and also to present their formerly quite-open desire to destroy the State of Israel, that Infidel nation-state smack in the middle of what they saw as one uninterrupted Arab Muslim sea, as Arafat and many others have said, “from the Atlantic to the Gulf” and beyond, as prompted not by Islam, but by deep solicitousness for this newly-invented “Palestinian people” and their “national liberation.” And slowly, little by little, as older people who remembered that not a single Arab leader, or Arab diplomat, or Arab spokesman, had before 1967 ever referred to this “Palestinian people” but called them what they were – Arabs, the local Arabs who were merely the shock troops, in situ, of the general Arab and Muslim effort against the Infidel nation-state of Israel, left the scene, and people who did not remember, and did not know, about this new development, and who, further, had very little knowledge either of Islam, or of the history of the conflict that was made on the Jews of Israel and before that, on the Jews of Mandatory Palestine (with the British failing to live up to their obligations, as Mandatory Authority, not only to adequately protect those Jews from attack – see what happened during the pogrom in the Old City in 1921, or how the British resident Caffarata behaved in Hebron, during the Arab massacre of every last Jew, in 1929). And of course, it is only just now that we are relearning what we never should have unlearned, which is the traditional treatment of Jews, and of Christians, under Islam.
No, Barack Obama shows no signs of knowing any of this, and indeed he repeats all the themes, from Bush and the other Bush and from Clinton and from the egregious Carter, about the “Palestinian people” and their “need” for a state. And he goes so far as to say that that “state” should be “contiguous,” which means, of course, that the Arabs (“Palestinians”) of Gaza and the Arabs in the “West Bank” (“Palestinians”) are somehow to be linked, but if they are linked then it is Israel that will be cut in two, in order to accommodate those who –because of the promptings of the Qur’an, Hadith, and Sira – will never, ever willingly acquiesce in the existence of Israel. And Obama presumably also means that within the “West Bank” the Arab settlements – for they are “settlements” no more and no less than are those places we call, so dismissively, Jewish “settlements” – are to be “contiguous” then that would mean that any Jewish towns or villages would be cut off.
Any political figure who appears before AIPAC can put his hand on his heart and talk about his sincere undying devotion to Israel, can assure his (or her) audience that her (or his) commitment, and the commitment of the United States, is “sacrosanct.” But this means little, if in the next breathe you set out as your policy the very outcomes, which if they came to pass would, in their complete lack of comprehension of what Israel faces, and what it will always face as an Infidel nation-state, and you have to choose. Either you choose Israel, and you do not prevent it from holding onto the “West Bank” with its historic invasion routes, and command of those routes, from the Judean Hills, and the aquifers under the “West Bank” which the Arabs have been misusing and, indeed, in some places seem to be deliberately poisoning, or you do not. You cannot say, no one would say, that we support country X, and that support is “sacrosanct,” but we also insist that Country X give up its legal, moral, and historic claims, and surrender territory – as it has again and again in the past, only to have every single agreement made with Arab states breached, in ways little and big, by those Muslim states, while Israeel always scrupulously gives up whatever tangible assets – land – it has committed to yielding.
The more one reads over Barack Obama’s speech, the more worrisome for those who are not misled, or fooled, by sentimental appeals.
Rhetorically honoring the memory of Schwerner and Goodman may make certain hearts swell, and of course they should. Good god, I remember how I wept when I learned that they, and Cheney, had been killed. But, I’m afraid, the invocation of those names, and the implied promise of some “black-Jewish” alliance, may be just the thing to win praise from Tikkun readers. But the renewal of such an alliance (hovering in the background are memories of Jack Greenberg of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund,, and Paul Robeson – and Alberta Hunter, too -- singing in Yiddish, and the ILGWU in the days of David Dubinsky and before him, Sid (“Clear It With Sidney”) Hillman, and all the rest, going back to the earliest days of the NAACP, long before a Farrakhan arrived on the scene. No doubt about it, there was such sympathy, there was such an alliance – in the sense that Jews did give time and money and sympathy, long before other whites did. And it is perfectly fine for Barack Obama to recognize that, and even to appeal to it. But he, and his AIPAC audience, and a much larger audience beyond, have to understand that alluding to Schwerner and Goodman and Cheney, and to the old days, will do nothing to stop rockets from raining on Sderot, or Ashdod from Gaza, or on Tel Aviv, or Jerusalem, from the “West Bank,” in a future “Palestinian state,” a “contiguous state,” that would be intolerable for the future safety of Israel. .
The war against Israel is not a war about “two tiny peoples” each “struggling for a homeland. It is a war by the Arabs and the Muslims – the same Arabs who are called “Arabs” in the phrase “there are Arabs and Kurds in Iraq” or who are called “Arabs” when we speak about Morocco and Algeria as containing “both Arabs and Berbers” or who are called “Arabs” when any of us, when Samantha Powers, for example, describes the situation in the Sudan, where “Arabs” attack “blacks” in Darfur or in the southern Sudan. Only in one particular case does everyone avoid using the word “Arabs” and that is when they, often unwittingly, use the word “Palestinians” for what is merely that group of Arabs who have been used, quite willingly, by all the Arabs and Muslims who, having failed to destroy Israel as yet through qitaal, or combat, are determined to push it back, and push it back, and then, at some point in the future, foreseeing a rump state that is impossible to defend, and a demoralized population, eventually that state will come undone.
It took nearly 2000 years for the re-establishment of the Jewish commonwealth, in the Land of Israel, by the survivors of both kinds of antisemisim, the kind in the Western world of which the Nazis, and their many collaborators, represented some kind of hideous apotheosis, and of Islamic antisemitism, different in its promptings and in some of of its attitudes, but not different in what it meant for the victims today, the nearly one million Jews who had endured life under Arab rule, but then were forced to flee for their lives, with many of them creating new lives in the State of Israel. And given that history, given the history of both kinds of antisemitism, and given the real history, cadastral and demographic, of that territory that under rule by the Ottomans, and assigned to different vilayets, and before that ruled by the Seljuk Turks, and before that, by Arabs, became by the nineteenth century, when Western travelers visited, a land “of ruin and desolation,” anyone who at this point, still declares himself in favor of a “state” – a “contiguous” state, mind you, for the “Palestinian people,” is someone who has not yet learned what that, seemingly so plausible and acceptable, really means.
It means the certain death, sooner or later, of Israel. It took nearly 2000 years for the Jews, with the most incredible of efforts, virtually alone, to rebuild a Second Commonwealth. If this one falls, they will never get a second chance.
Would that someone could go to Obama, and of course to McCain (whose instincts are right, even if he still supports, maddeningly, the American presence in Iraq), and give him a short and lucid course – quite different in content from the one he took from that sly islamochristian Khalidi – on the history of the Middle East, and the history of Islam, with its texts and tenets spelled out, and on the origins and true meaning of the phrase “Palestiniian people,” and on certain unpleasant realities about invasion routes, and watertables, and above all, on why any further Israeli surrenders of territory, or control of territory, will inevitably whet, not sate, Arab and Muslim appetites, and that the only “solution” is not that which ignores Islam, but that takes into account the unassuagable, but containable, impulse and duty, for Muslims, of tearing down all obstacles to the spread, and dominance, of Islam, all over the world, but even higher on that To-Do List is the necessity, the sublime duty, of makinig sure that every square inch of land once possessed by Muslims is again recaptured by, and for, Muslims, by whatever means prove, at any point, most effective.
.
Here's an article by the always excellent Daniel Pipes contrasting the approaches to Israel by Obama and McCain.
Although it is somewhat heartening to hear Obama at least indicate some support of Israel, McCain specifically recognizes the growing threats to Israel, especially from Iran.
Here's the link:
http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0608/pipes060308.php3
It took nearly 2000 years for the re-establishment of the Jewish commonwealth, in the Land of Israel, by the survivors of both kinds of antisemisim, the kind in the Western world of which the Nazis, and their many collaborators, represented some kind of hideous apotheosis, and of Islamic antisemitism, ...
Posted by: Hugh at June 5, 2008 3:32 PM
Hugh, there were times when Islamic antisemitism was all too happy to wander over and get in bed with Western antisemitism and the Nazis. Another little bit of Islamic history that the MSM never exposes...
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=8415
All Obama needs to do is become embarrassed enough by his corrupt associates to bow out of the race.
He can donate the empty suit to the Smithsonian.
"Islam loses all credibility if Allah is not God." --duh swami
"Allah" is a pagan moon deity from pre-Islamic lore. "Allah" is a rock idol. Ergo, "Allah" doesn't exist.
Right - Islam has no credibility. None whatsoever, to rational, thinking, humans.
Obama didn't get off to a good start.
He manhandled Joe Lieberman in the Senate today.
Returning to the Senate after his securing the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama and Lieberman greeted each on the Senate floor in the Well as they were voting on the budget resolution.
They shook hands. But Obama didn't let go, leading Lieberman -- cordially -- by the hand across the room into a corner on the Democratic side, where Democratic sources tell ABC News he delivered some tough words for the junior senator from Connecticut, who had just minutes before hammered Obama's speech before the pro-Israel group AIPAC in a conference call arranged by the McCain campaign.
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2008/06/obamas_discourtesy_to_lieberma.html