"Morally shameful"

I agree with Mr. Wehner that it is shameful how hostile President Obama and his administration are toward our country's greatest ally in the Middle East. The man bows to other world leaders and lets them cross "red lines" without repercussions. But Israel draws his rage and his snubs. Excerpt:

But the problem goes much deeper than a personality clash. President Obama is, quite simply, anti-Israel. In every conceivable situation and circumstance, the president and his aides give the benefit of the doubt not to Israel but to its enemies. This despite the fact that Israel is among America’s longest and best allies, democratic, lawful, takes exquisite steps to prevent civilian deaths in nations committed to destroying it, and has made extraordinary sacrifices for peace. No matter; the pressure that’s applied is always applied most against Israel–even when, as in last year’s conflict with Hamas, Israel was the victim of lethal attacks.

This is morally shameful. In a world filled with despotic leaders and sadistic and ruthless regimes–North Korea, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Eritrea, Sudan, Somalia, and on and on–which nation alone does Mr. Obama become “enraged” at? Which is the object of his disdain? Which provokes his white-hot anger?

Answer: Israel. Has it struck you, as it has struck me, that with every other nation, including the most repressive and anti-American on earth, Mr. Obama is careful never to give offense, to always extend the olive branch, and to treat their leaders with unusual deference and respect? Except for the Jewish State of Israel. It always seems to be in the Obama crosshair.

Senator Rand Paul Responds to Attacks in Israel

From his Senatorial website.

Nov 18, 2014

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sen. Rand Paul today issued the following statement in response to the brutal attack that took place in a Jerusalem synagogue, resulting in the death of three Americans:

"I am deeply saddened and alarmed by the attacks that took place early this morning in Israel. These men of faith were cruelly murdered as they were worshiping in their synagogue in Har Nof. I vow to Stand with Israel and I will continue to do all I can to protect Americans at home and abroad. This is a horrific act of violence that should be universally condemned. We must demand that Palestinian leaders stop the incitement, which they have committed in word and in deed. My thoughts and prayers are with the people of Israel," Sen. Paul said.

Good. No crap about "calling on both sides" that we are used to hearing.

Director Blue Smells a Rat

Director Blue notices "The" "American" "Conservative". RTWT, excerpt:

I recently stumbled across a website that purports to represent a center-right point-of-view called The American Conservative. Initially intrigued -- considering that Americans can always use compelling conservative opinion sites -- I perused the site and quickly noticed something a bit, well, off.

No fewer than five articles on the front page alone represented attacks on Sen. Ted Cruz — the brilliant Constitutional conservative from Texas — and many more attacked Israel and "Islamophobia". The ludicrous crackpot Stephen M. Walt, a notorious purveyor of anti-semitism, is linked as are pseudo-conservatives like Conor Friedersdorf.

We smelled the rat too, Doug. I don't know if TAC "purports to represent a center-right point-of-view". I think they purport to represent something they would call traditional conservatism or authentic conservatism.

It's interesting to read other takes on TAC, and I like Director Blue (Doug Ross) with whom I'm pretty much in agreement. I try to stay away from terms like "false flag", but I agree with and rather like the characterization of TAC as "internet chewing gum" and "honeypot".

Most importantly, Mr. Ross points us to a must-read exposé of Stephen Walt and John Mearsheimer as the kings of leftist academic antisemitism.

David Harsanyi on why Ted Cruz was right

Here's the best-written article I've found to sum up how I feel about persecuted Christians in the middle-east, the State of Israel and Ted Cruz getting booed a week ago. Here's the meat of it, but it's worth reading the whole thing:

But when it comes worldly matters, here’s what I think I know: There’s only one country in the Middle East that doesn’t persecute – or allow the persecution of – Christians. And, in today’s world, that makes them an ally of the oppressed.

As Cruz points out:

Those who hate Jews hate Christians. If those in this room will not recognize that, then my heart weeps. If you hate the Jewish people, you are not reflecting the teachings of Christ. And the very same people who persecute and murder Christians right now, who crucify Christians, who behead children, are the very same people who target Jews for their faith, for the same reason.”

No, Israel’s not going to drop commandos in to rescue the Coptic or send an airlift for the Assyrians– any more than the United States can or would. (Though, sometimes, I wonder why.) But in the Middle East, secularism is far less dangerous to Christians than theocracy. Assad, then, might be a better option than ISIS, but Israel is better option than any of them. Because, generally speaking, Israel shares the same enemies, the same broader geopolitical aims and the same moral outlook. Which, today, makes it the only nation to ally with Christians in the Middle East.*

The best testament to how Jews feel about Middle Eastern Christians can be seen in how they treat them. According to a 2013 Israeli census, the Christian population in Israel has been growing over the years. The only stable Christian population in the Middle East. There are 158,000 Christians in Israel (many of them Arab, and some of them Russians who were offered asylum through The Law of Return). And on average, they were better educated than Jews, and just as prosperous. The Israeli government has actively attempted to better integrate Christian Arabs, who are politically dissimilar from many Muslim Israeli Arabs. It must be working to some extent. According to Time magazine, there’s been a big increase in Arab Christians enlisting in the Israeli army, “doubling the number of each of the preceding three years.” Israel should do more to make it happen.

What threatens the Christian population in Israel? It’s what threatens them everywhere. According to the census takers, “there were fears that Muslim intimidation in cities in northern Israel, where many of them live, are causing large numbers to consider emigrating to the West.”

The reason I like this article so much is it addresses the usual canards thrown around about the views of people like me who support Israel. Harsanyi shoots down the idea that we think Israel can do no wrong or that we prefer secular over religious in general for some insidious reason. I'll take peaceful secular governments over murderous Muslim ones any day, thank you. As far as I can see, the countries being considered aren't Catholic and the call to prayer in these countries does not contain words from The Purpose-Driven Life translated into Arabic.

I don't claim to know why or if Cruz should have said everything he said to that specific audience. But I agree with it in substance. The elephant in the middle of the room remains the question of why do people hate Israel so much. I think there is an answer to this and you may want to go read it here if you wish, with one warning. If you didn't like what David Harsanyi and I have written you will possibly be very angry at what Aryeh Spero writes there.

Easy to explain, hard to solve.

As he does with all topics, Dennis Prager brings clarity to the topic of the Israel-Arab conflict.

Once you understand the problem, it's easy to know what side to be on. If you misunderstand the problem then I can see why you might support Hamas. They have a lot of people on their side due to the underdog fallacy. Do the "have-nots" ever commit evils against the "haves"? If you answer "no", then I can understand why you might support Hamas and other Islamic terror groups.

Stop Hamas Now

Go to the Stop Hamas Now website and sign the petition. This is a letter which will be sent to everybody in leadership. Here's the text:

An open letter to America's leaders

Dear President Obama, Secretary Kerry, members of Congress, Governors, state and local officials, and our nation's business and religious leaders:

Israel has been under attack. Under attack by an enemy – Hamas - that values death over life. That uses women and children to shield its weapons and bombs. That has as its goal the destruction of Israel. And the destruction of Western Civilization.

The very same Hamas that has as a part of its covenant the destruction of Israel. The very same Hamas that cheers when Americans die and condemns America when she takes on evil around the globe.

And the very same radical ideology that led to the death of nearly 3,000 Americans on September 11, 2001. And that's behind the slaughter of Christians throughout the Middle East.

We mourn the loss of innocent life in Gaza. But those deaths are not collateral damage; they are a part of a deliberate plan by Hamas to cause the death of its own women and children, and then use those deaths to garner international sympathy.

It is a grotesque strategy. One the media should expose. And the world should condemn. One that must not happen again.

Leaders of America, please send a unified message to Israel and the world that America stands with our ally in this battle for her survival. That Hamas must be disarmed and stay disarmed. And that we stand against Hamas's depraved use of innocent civilians as human shields, and its ideology of hate and intolerance.

This fight in Gaza, in the end, is a fight between good and evil.

It isn't just Israel's fight. It's America's, too. And the civilized world's.

Moral Clarity

Charlie K brings the moral clarity, but it feels like a waste of time even as it reads like the Truth. Excerpt:

Rarely does international politics present a moment of such moral clarity. Yet we routinely hear this Israel-Gaza fighting described as a morally equivalent “cycle of violence.” This is absurd. What possible interest can Israel have in cross-border fighting? Everyone knows Hamas set off this mini-war. And everyone knows the proudly self-declared raison d’etre of Hamas: the eradication of Israel and its Jews.

Apologists for Hamas attribute the blood lust to the Israeli occupation and blockade. Occupation? Does no one remember anything? It was less than 10 years ago that worldwide television showed the Israeli army pulling die-hard settlers off synagogue roofs in Gaza as Israel uprooted its settlements, expelled its citizens, withdrew its military and turned every inch of Gaza over to the Palestinians. There was not a soldier, not a settler, not a single Israeli left in Gaza.

And there was no blockade. On the contrary. Israel wanted this new Palestinian state to succeed. To help the Gaza economy, Israel gave the Palestinians its 3,000 greenhouses that had produced fruit and flowers for export. It opened border crossings and encouraged commerce.

The reason it seems like a waste of time is that the people determined to perpetuate the ridiculous "cycle of violence" meme sound so morally superior to everyone. The sense I get from them is "Yes, yes, we know that one side may be more to blame that the other, but really, this part of the world has been fighting for hundreds and thousands of years. It's time to stop pointing fingers...." No! I want more finger pointing. What is wrong with a one-state solution, run by grown-ups (Israelis) where we recognize who's to blame for the violence (Palestinians)? And anyone who doesn't like that can move to one of the other wonderful Muslim countries in the area. If they'll allow them in.

David French explains what reasonable response should mean

David French explains why wiping out Hamas would be perfectly reasonable for Israel to do.

When an enemy force consistently and deliberately does all that it can to terrorize and kill as many of your citizens as possible, with no regard for the difference between military and civilian targets, the “reasonable” thing to do is obliterate that enemy. Destroy it. There is nothing unreasonable about self-defense, and there is nothing unreasonable about destroying an armed enemy force. In fact, our own military has a long and proud history of destroying enemy armed forces, and our nation and the world tend to achieve far better outcomes when our military is given the free hand to do the truly reasonable thing: defeat the enemy.

But since we’re defining “reasonable,” let’s also define “unreasonable.”

It is unreasonable to expect Israel to exercise more restraint than the United States would under similar circumstances. It is unreasonable to demand that Israel abide by made-up rules of “proportionality” that we’ve rightly rejected for our own armed forces. It is unreasonable to assume that the so-called “honest broker” role requires this nation to blind itself to truth and violate its own laws by funneling hundreds of millions of dollars per year to a terrorist “unity” government.

The world will never be free of violence, but a world with no Hamas would be better than a world with Hamas. That's for sure.

I've always thought the Israelis are far too nice to people who behave like wild animals.

H/T ACLJ.

I thought it was probably bull crap

And the rumor that Israel and the Palestinians are about to enter "direct talks" turns out to be bull crap. Or, as Ed Morrisey calls it, "fantasy fiction".

When Kerry became Secretary of State, he did promise to bring a fresh diplomatic approach to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Who knew that would be fantasy fiction? On the surface, this appears to be something out of The Parent Trap — tricking Mom and Dad into meeting someplace so that they can really discover how much they missed each other. All we need is Hayley Mills and some really bad songwriting.