28 April 2011
Why has this been such a big deal? Why has this issue gained such traction?
We have seen over the last four years that President Obama's sensibilities do not line up with the sensibilities of a majority of Americans. The Founders expected, and why they added the clause about being a "natural born citizen", that those born in the United States would be more likely to care about the country than those born outside.
* Sitting in a church for 20 years listening to a preacher damning America... is not helpful.
* Your wife claiming that "for the first time" in her adult life "she's proud of her country"... is not helpful.
* Being friendly with a domestic terrorist who has never regretted his actions... is not helpful.
* Not standing at attention and covering your heart when the national anthem is played... is not helpful.
* Not wearing the American flag on your lapel... is not helpful.
* Describing the Muslim call to prayer the "prettiest sound on earth"... is not helpful.
* Returning the Winston Churchill bust to Great Britain... is not helpful.
* Stating that "American exceptionalism" is the same as the British or Greeks' belief in their exceptionalism... is not helpful.
* Looking more like a "citizen of the world" rather than an American President... is not helpful.
* Bowing unnecessarily to other world leaders... is not helpful.
None of these examples are helpful in painting Obama as one who truly cares about the United States.
While the President and the media are interested in painting the "birthers" as marginal extremists - in truth only 38% of Americans believe that Obama was "definitely" born in the United States with another 18% believing that he was "probably" born here. Not because American who aren't sure are racists as the claim has been made - but because Obama's actions and comments bring us to question a man whose sensibilities and ideas are not in line with mainstream America, and as a result - Americans question his place of birth.
Certainly the issue of race has come up - since liberals and Democrats are so deeply tied to "identity politics" rather than the content of a person's character. A good example may be Rev. Jesse Jackson, who ran for President in 1984 and in 1988. Whether he was born in the United States was never in question - while his policies may have been those I do not believe in - his comments or actions never gave anyone pause to wonder about his place of origin. Obama's do.
I think that it's time that all those who plan on running for the highest office of the land be required to show their birth certificate. Up until now we have trusted the candidates themselves that they were born here. This is no longer the case.
Update: While writing this article - President Obama has announced the assassination of Osama bin Laden. He and the United States military are to be congratulated. An action such as this - goes a long way to putting American concerns about Obama to rest.
17 April 2011
May this year bring us true freedom - from fear, from those who seek to destroy us, from those who look to impose their false ideas over those of G-d. The G-d who gave us the Land of Israel, who gave us the Torah, who gave us the opportunity to be His People - to be the role model for the rest of the world.
Please G-d it should be a peaceful year for all of us and those living in Israel.
Enjoy your seders!!!
11 April 2011
A Hamas spokesman told Israel Radio that the organization is talking to Egypt and European diplomats to request a cease-fire. "We want there to be calm and stability in Gaza," said Ghazi Hamad, who serves a deputy foreign minister in the Hamas government in the Gaza Strip. "We asked that Israel stop its attacks because we have more than 18 deaths in 48 hours. This is a very difficult situation."
Why is Hamas calling for a cease-fire? Is it so they can come to the negotiating table and talk peace? No. It is a strategic tactic to re-arm and prepare for the next go-round with Israel. Nothing more.
July 24, 2003
I do not ride the buses because I'm afraid that I'll be blown up. In fact, I rented a car here in Israel so I would not have to use the convenient and inexpensive public transportation system. My life and the life of every other Jew in this country has been changed because of the Arab occupation of this land.
What about this "cease-fire"? Doesn't that mean that we are working toward peace over here in Israel? One would think so. But the Jewish woman who was blown up in her own home when a suicide bomber walked in might disagree. It was only a "splinter group" that took responsibility.
Two days ago I was sitting at my friend's kitchen table in a suburb of Jerusalem playing cards. All of a sudden I heard shooting from the nearby Arab village. Did someone say something about a "cease-fire"?
What is being touted as a "cease-fire" is something called a "hudna". A hudna is a tactical cease-fire that allows the Arabs to rebuild their terrorist infrastructure in order to be more effective when the "cease-fire" is called off.
We must listen carefully to the double talk of Yasser Arafat and Abu Mazen when they call for peace with the Jews. Arafat has always used the peace treaty that Mohammed signed with the Quraysh tribe in Mecca in the seventh century as a model for his peace treaties signed with the Jews.
But why should we care about a peace treaty signed hundreds of years ago?
If we do not understand this important event, we will never understand the situation here in Israel.
Israelis here were thrilled when the latest cease-fire was signed. There were pictures in the newspapers showing our young soldiers jumping for joy. Unfortunately, they obviously do not know that a historical mistake is being replayed. It is based on the history of Mohammed and the tribe of Quraysh.
Mohammed originated from the city of Mecca, which was being controlled by the tribe of Quraysh. But in 622 A.D. Mohammed fled to Medina after being forced from Mecca by the Quraysh tribe for preaching a monotheistic message.
While in Medina, Mohammed signed a peace treaty with the tribe of Quraysh that "agreed to remove war from the people for 10 years. During this time...no one is to lay hands on another...evil [is] to be abstained from, and there is to be no raiding or spoliation."
During the next eight years Mohammed concentrated on building his power base and was soon much stronger than the Quraysh tribe. The treaty quickly fell to pieces and Mohammed attacked the Quraysh tribe in 630 A.D. and took the city. The peace treaty was only a tactical tool against the Quraysh tribe.
Here too in Israel we have the same situation. israel has signed peace treaty after peace treaty with the Arabs who occupy this country. These peace treaties mean nothing when Arafat compares them to the peace treaty between Mohammed and the Quraysh tribe of Mecca. This and every other peace treaty is based on the belief that it is acceptable to deceive your enemy if he is stronger than you.
Peace is certainly an honorable goal, but it requires that all parties act honorably. When it is obvious that when the Arabs are not acting in good faith, a peace treaty becomes a death pact. The treaty of Mohammed and the Quraysh tribe is one to be remembered.
The Arabs here certainly do.
04 April 2011
This idea is being floated and is a very scary thought for anybody who cares about the State of Israel. Samantha Power is known as a powerful advocate in the Obama Administration for military intervention when genocide may be occurring or about to occur. But what about her ideas about Israel? Is Israel committing "genocide" against the Palestinians?
We find her thoughts clearly articulated in an interview with the Institute of International Studies at UC Berkeley in April 2002.
Power: I don't think that in any of the cases, a shortage of information is the problem. I actually think in the Palestine - Israel situation, there's an abundance of information. What we don't need is some kind of early warning mechanism there, what we need is a willingness to put something on the line in helping the situation. Putting something on the line might mean alienating a domestic constituency of tremendous political and financial import; it may more crucially mean sacrificing -- or investing, I think, more than sacrificing -- billions of dollars, not in servicing Israel's military, but actually investing in the new state of Palestine, in investing the billions of dollars it would probably take, also, to support what will have to be a mammoth protection force, not of the old Rwanda kind, but a meaningful military presence. Because it seems to me at this stage (and this is true of actual genocides as well, and not just major human rights abuses, which were seen there), you have to go in as if you're serious, you have to put something on the line.
Unfortunately, imposition of a solution on unwilling parties is dreadful. It's a terrible thing to do, it's fundamentally undemocratic …. And, unfortunately, it does require external intervention, which, very much like the Rwanda scenario, that thought experiment, if we had intervened early.... Any intervention is going to come under fierce criticism. But we have to think about lesser evils, especially when the human stakes are becoming ever more pronounced. [emphasis added]
Power has been deeply involved in the United States military involvement in Libya on humanitarian grounds. Knowing that she believes that intervention is a real option - and believes that the Palestinians are under threat of genocide... what keeps Power, as Secretary of State, from suggesting to a possible second Obama administration that the Palestinians need United States protection from Israel?
Is this a far fetched idea? I don't believe so.
This September the United Nations, the same body that spends more time condemning the democratic State of Israel than any other country, may be voting to welcome the new State of Palestine into the family of nations. This new state would include Gaza, Judea/Samaria (the West Bank) and East Jerusalem as its capital.
Considering that Gaza is run by Hamas, an established and known terrorist organization that targets civilians in Israel daily and the Palestinian Authority running the West Bank continues to honor the "martyrs" that have murdered Jews and giving financial support to their families - it's a wonder how their application to the UN can possibly be taken seriously.
While their application is a wonder to most of us - it will not be laughed out of the General Assembly. In fact, it will most probably be voted on and the State of Palestine will come into being. What will happen next is a worry. Since Israel is "occupying" most of the new state - what will the World do to rectify the situation? Delegitimize Israel like they did to South Africa some years ago? Levy sanctions? Send United Nations military forces? We don't know.
What do we know?
* We know that Hillary Clinton will not serve as President Obama's Secretary of State in a possible second presidential term.
* We know that Samantha Power has President Obama's ear when dealing with foreign affairs.
* We know that Samantha Power believes that a genocide is being perpetrated against the Palestinians.
* We know that President Obama has a history of pro-Palestinian positions and having pro-Palestinian advisors.
It shouldn't be a surprise to us come September if we see a future Secretary of State Powers pushing for admission of the new State of Palestine into the United Nations.
Everyone who cares about Israel and her security must contact their senator and let them know that the United States should not impose any peace "solution" on Israel and must not confirm Samantha Power as Secretary of State in a possible Obama second term. The Middle East is not the middle west - and while we in the United States and other democratic countries assume that everyone wants the same thing - real peace - true peace must come from those involved in the conflict. We have yet to see the Palestinians do anything other than attack the civilian population in Israel. Real peace is unfortunately far off - to impose a solution, especially on a democratic nation, is a dangerous precedent for anyone who believes in the rule of law and the legitimacy of a people to elect their leaders to represent them. We must not let this happen.