Putting the Holocaust on a Pedestal

It seems that Mike Huckabee has started a hoop and a lah by stating his opposition to the Iran deal by alluding to the Holocaust, where at least 6 million Jews were massacred.

“This president’s foreign policy is the most feckless in American history,” Huckabee, a former governor of Arkansas, told the Breitbart News Saturday show on SiriusXM Patriot. "He's so naive he would trust the Iranians and he would take the Israelis and basically march them to the door of the oven. This is the most idiot thing.”

This of course was followed with a response by Debbie Wasserman Schultz, DNC head, whose feelings were hurt.

“This rhetoric, while commonplace in today’s Republican presidential primary, has no place in American politics,” Wasserman Schultz said in a statement. "Cavalier analogies to the Holocaust are unacceptable. Mike Huckabee must apologize to the Jewish community and to the American people for this grossly irresponsible statement.”

Huckabee isn't backing down - and nor should he. I want no apology. Is the Holocaust an event to put on a pedestal as something to be venerated, but not to be learned from? I want my potential President to understand the devastation that Iran could unleash on the Jewish state. There are over 8 million people in Israel, about 75% of them Jews -- a nuclear bomb wiping out the population isn't a "Holocaust"?

Oh, but all that current (like everyday) rhetoric still talking about the destruction of Israel isn't really all that serious. And you know, this deal is going to stop Iran from building their bombs... at least for 10 years... and we trust them because we get to spot check them... oh wait, no we don't. The Iranians are going to self-check and report back... what? Really?! Whatever, don't confuse me. I'm a Democrat and I trust my President.

10 years? Reminds me of another treaty... right, the one that Muhammed made with the Quraysh tribe. Why do we care about this treaty? Because history, like the Holocaust, is there to be learned from.

Muhammed originated from the city of Mecca, which was being controlled by the tribe of Quraysh. But in 622 A.D. Muhammed fled to Medina after being forced from Mecca by the Quraysh tribe for preaching a monotheistic message.

While in Medina, Muhammed 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 Muhammed concentrated on building his power base and was soon much stronger than the Quraysh tribe. The treaty quickly fell to pieces and Muhammed attacked the Quraysh tribe in 630 A.D. and took the city. The peace treaty was only a tactical tool against the Quraysh tribe. Otherwise known as a "hudna".

Could this be a hudna rather than a peace treaty? Do we really trust Iran to hold up their side of the bargain? Do we trust the international community to make sure that Iran holds up their side of the bargain - that they won't have hidden centrifuges that can't be checked on? Or are the Jews (and non-Jews) living in Israel on their own, again, waiting on the best wishes of the world to save them.

Never Again.