Moral Equivalency Gone Wrong

NBC is doing a spread about the 14 year old "Palestinian" American citizen who was killed by the Israel Defense Forces. Why was he killed? It wasn't random, he was throwing molotov cocktails at Israeli cars - an act that could potentially wound and murder innocents. His father denies his actions and says "and he's a kid." In the US, 14 years old "kids" have been charged as adults for murder. Kids who are attempting to murder need to be stopped, even by lethal force. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

What is even more ridiculous is that NBC is making an absurd and disgusting comparison.

Palestinian-American Orwah had been shot dead in a confrontation with Israeli forces in his hometown of Silwad, the second U.S. child to die in unrest which boiled over last week. On Wednesday, a Palestinian man plowed into a crowd at a transit stop, killing a three-month-old Israeli-American baby. A 22-year-old tourist from Ecuador later died from her injuries in that attack.

NBC is comparing the death of this "kid" to another child - a three month girl who was intentionally attacked by a terrorist who plowed his car into her carriage and into a crowd waiting for transportation. A pure innocent, whose parents waited years for her arrival.

Is there any comparison to be made here? No comparison whatsoever. A long-awaited baby versus someone doing his best to murder others. There's something wrong with this picture.

What subjective, moral equivalency garbage is NBC spewing?

Is Samantha Power the next Secretary of State?

Samantha Power the next Secretary of State?

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.

The Goose and the Gander

The New York Times has brought to our attention the question of Israel's legitimacy as a Jewish state.

Many Jews in Israel and beyond consider it essential that they are recognized not just as members of a religion but also as a people with historic rights to a sovereign state in the Holy Land. The issue, they say, goes to the core of the conflict and will serve as a litmus test for Palestinian intentions.

"Only when our peace partners are willing to recognize the legitimacy of the Jewish state," Mr. Netanyahu said... "will they truly be prepared to end the conflict and make a lasting peace with Israel."

But given the opposition to this demand by the Palestinians and many of Israel's own Arab citizens, some are questioning how vital it is.

By removing the "Jewish" from the Jewish-democratic identity of the State of Israel, serious questions arise - does this negate the historical claim the Jews have to the Land? Does this create the impression that the only reason Israel exists is because the United Nations gave it status in 1948?

To answer both questions - yes, and yes again. It removes the 3000 year connection the Jewish People have with the Land and relegates it to the status of any other country established by the United Nations.

The modern State of Israel was established as the Jewish homeland. Israel's Declaration of Independence begins:

Eretz-Israel [Land of Israel] was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books.

After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.

Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland...

This brings us to question in a quid pro quo - in other words, what's good for the goose is good for the gander - If we are allowed to question the Jewish identity and claim to the Land in the name of "peace" than surely we can question the "Palestinian" identity and claim to the Land as well.

The Arabs claim an "historic Arab Palestine", while at the same time are unable to recognize an ancient Jewish empire. Let us deal with this claim first. When did the "historic Arab Palestine" exist? Where were its borders? Who were its leaders? What kind of culture did those 'ancient' Palestinians have? What kind of political system did they have? This "historic Arab Palestine" never existed.

The beginning of the Palestinian issue begins way back during ancient Roman times. When the Romans conquered the Jews in 70 CE (Common Era/AD) and destroyed the Temple, the Romans still had problems with the Jewish People. The Jewish People were not willing to give up their Land without a fight. So finally in 135 CE, the Romans had enough. They wiped out the stronghold of Masada, and gave the Holy Land the new name of "Palestine", named after the Greek Philistines of Bible fame, and scattered the Jews across the world. The new "slave name" was created to break the connection that the Jews had with their homeland and destroy the Jews as a People. As 2000 years has shown us, Rome is gone and Israel is back. However, the "slave name" stuck.

After WWI, the "Palestine" Mandate was given to the British to administer. It consisted of the current countries of both Israel and Jordan, and both Arabs and Jews had the "Palestinian" identity stamped into their passports from 1917-1948.

In 1922, Arab-"Palestine" was split off from the Mandate and re-named Trans-Jordan and the only "Palestine" left on the map referred to area of Israel. The "Palestinians" of Jordan became Jordanians.

In 1948, Israel declared independence and the Jewish and Arab "Palestinians" became Israelis. That would make sense of course, but this is the Middle East. Not all the Arabs of Jewish-"Palestine" decided to take Israel's offer to become Israelis, instead they created a new "nation" - the "Palestinian People", whose land was usurped by the Jews.

The point of all this is to prove two points:
* First, there is no "Palestinian People" who have a claim on the Land of Israel.
* Second, the attempt to break the connection between the Jewish People and the Land of Israel is not a new one. It's been tried before - by the Romans.

This connection defies time. If Israel were not important to the Jewish People - we could have turned our backs years ago and said it wasn't worth the blood that we have shed over the millennium. We haven't.

Why is Israel being pressured to stop building on Jewish Land? Why do we hope that the "Palestinians" recognize us as a Jewish State? Why do we care about a people who are unwilling to make peace for the sake of peace without conditions attached?

It is unfathomable to be in "negotiations" with anyone holding a proverbial gun to our heads. We don't have to recognize them as a "People" with any legitimate claim to the Land - they don't have one. The Jewish connection is the one that exists. It's time for these "Palestinians" to find somewhere else to live. It's as simple as that.