Israel & The Palestinians – An Interesting Argument & An Anomaly

By

Ken Eliasberg

            If the reader thinks that my last columns presented an unduly pessimistic portrayal of the situation in the Middle East, and, more specifically, my appraisal of the prospect for either peace between Israel and its Arab neighbors or Israel’s future, then I refer him (or her) to a recent column by Dennis Prager at nationalreview.com on June 8th entitled

If Israel Is Not Evil, the World Is in Big Trouble – Nearly everyone in the world is against Israel; let’s hope they’re right. The column is incredibly insightful in its analysis and terrifying in its assessment of the situation. In essence, what Prager does is expand on my suggestion that we may be gearing up for another holocaust (actually, he takes it a giant step beyond my focus on Israel). He does so by presenting a litany of arguments and attacks launched by various of the forces aligned against Israel, concluding after each with the statement – Let’s hope (e.g.) the world is right.

            At the conclusion of his piece – after 4 pages of enumerating the world’s complaints about, criticisms, and attacks of Israel – Prager makes the following observation as to why he closed out each attack on Israel with the expression of Let’s hope that so and so or such and such argument is right:

“The reason mankind has to hope that the world, its leaders, its newspapers, its so- 

  called human-rights organizations, and the United Nations are right about Israel is

  quite simple: If Israel is the decent party in its war with the Palestinian Authority

  and Hamas, and nearly all the world’s countries, nearly all the world’s media, and

  the United Nations are morally wrong, what hope is there for humanity? If the

  world’s moral compass is that broken, are we not sailing into a dark age?”

And Prager is absolutely right. In a previous column I concluded that the world’s animus toward Israel might be leading to another holocaust – the extermination of Israel with the concomitant annihilation of her people. Prager takes it further – a very logical step further – connecting the dots to what’s happening to Israel with what would (will?) happen to all of Western Civilization if Israel were to meet with such a fate. That is, Israel is, as I have always argued, America’s (Civilization’s) canary in the coal mine. If her light were to be extinguished, it would not just be the end of illumination in the Middle East; it would be a precursor to the lights of Western Civilization going out all over the world.

            Meanwhile, in the day-to-day happenings in the witch’s brew that is Middle Eastern politics, I would like to point out a curious event that demonstrates how awkward and delicate is the balance in that region of the world. I received an email from a friend, a friend who is very engaged with respect to matters pertaining to Israel. In the email she included an article from The Jerusalem Post by Khaled Abu Toameh in which the author observed that Fatah, the group that presides over the Palestinian portion of the West Bank, was somewhat distressed overTurkey’s actions on behalf of Gaza, and, as a necessary consequence, of Hamas (the Palestinian group (of terrorists) that governs Gaza). My friend seemed somewhat surprised by this turn of events, i.e. that a Palestinian group might actually favor Israel, albeit in this somewhat indirect fashion. Actually, Fatah was not favoring Israel, it was just expressing its concern over the possibility that the world, or at least significant portions of it, were according favorable recognition to Hamas, thus possibly weakening Fatah’s leadership position within the Palestinian community. I emailed her back that Fatah’s position was not at all surprising. Abbas, Fatah’s leader, is understandably threatened by any improvement in Hamas’s position in the world. Why? Because it might carry with it an authority that would strengthen Hamas’s claim to leadership over the Palestinian people. You may recall the savagery that Hamas visited upon Fatah leading up to expelling its supporters from Gaza.

An interesting corollary to this proposition is that all that really keeps Abbas from being overthrown by Hamas is the Israel Defense Force (IDF). I feel very certain that were the IDF not in the area, Hamas would do to Fatah on the West Bank exactly what it did to them in Gaza. Why the IDF support of Abbas? Because Fatah is the designated Palestinian driver of the alleged peace process with Israel, Hamas being an unwilling and an unworthy candidate for the job.

            In this regard, it is interesting to note that, notwithstanding Fatah’s favored position in the “peace process” negotiations, she is equally vociferous in denying Israel’s right to exist. And, frankly, this leads to the inescapable conclusion that there will be no peace in that area. Indeed, there can’t be. Abbas has almost no choice but to deny Israel’s right to exist (to his people in Arabic); a Palestinian leader who would recognize Israel’s right to exist as part of an agreement according Palestinians the rights they claim, would undoubtedly end up in the same position as Anwar Sadat (who signed the peace treaty with Israel in which Egypt recognized Israel’s right to exist (and, in exchange, the Sinai, an area rich in resources, was restored to her)). This is both the anomaly with respect to conditions in that region of the world and a very dark cloud that hangs over any effort the parties may make toward peace. Indeed, even after Arafat was brought back to the territory as the result of the Oslo Accord, he continued to broadcast – in Arabic – to his people that they should not be dismayed by his entering into the agreement with Israel; it was just a ploy – his desire to destroy Israel was still in place, now strengthened by his being better geographically positioned to do so.

Jews were aware that Arafat was speaking out of both sides of his mouth – those on the right were concerned; those on the left, desperate for any concrete effort to secure peace, wrote it off as just the necessary cost of doing business, i.e. Arafat had no choice but to take that position with his people if he were to be allowed to remain in a position of leadership. The left’s position, in this regard, was reminiscent of LBJ’s view of geopolitical reality with respect to any foreign despotic leader that we did business with, i.e. he may be an S.O.B., but he’s our S.O.B. This has been the favored geopolitical position of our foreign policy leadership types, i.e. the “stability” doctrine; we don’t choose the leaders of other countries, we just have to live with, and, where necessary, do business with, those who are chosen. Let me assure you that Abbas is much more afraid of his own people than he is of any Israeli; he is Netanyahu’s designated “peace partner,” and there is no way the Israelis will do anything but keep him alive. If they never raised their hand against Arafat – a despicable monster – there is no chance that Abbas will meet with harm at the hands of the Israelis.

A Middle East Reality: Peace Between Israel And Its Neighbors? Forget About It – The Arabs Will Never Let It Happen

By

Ken Eliasberg

            It is possible that no century produced more geopolitical conflict than did the 20th century. From the Russo/Japanese conflict of 1904 to the current conflagration in Afghanistan, there was almost no surcease. At any given time, war was raging somewhere, punctuated by several of global significance, e.g. two world wars, Korea, and Vietnam. That said, no arena has produced more enduring difficulties than those arising out of the Middle East, i.e. the more than 6-decade Arab-Israeli conflict. By the same token, no conflict has given rise to more dialogue and discussion than that particular dispute. It has produced hundreds of books, thousands of articles and columns, endless discussion – all to no avail. Why not? Because all of this attention is predicated on the assumption that peace is possible – if only those recalcitrant Jews would accede to the demands of their peace-loving Muslim neighbors. And therein lies the reason for all of this rather meaningless outpouring of speech and literature. The Arabs don’t want peace with the Jews; they just don’t want Jews – PERIOD!! At long last, some astute observer has produced a column, brilliant in its simplicity, and blinding in its illumination of the fundamental truth of the Arab/Israeli reality. The author, a self declared conservative Christian, is one Jerry Philipson, and his refreshingly insightful piece appears at the website of the American Thinker (an excellent website); it was published on May 2nd and reads as follows:

“The crux of Islam’s hatred against the Jews

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the United States and Egypt are discussing an agreement which would see the Middle East, including Israel and Iran, become a nuclear free zone. The Daily Telegraph newspaper in England reports that President Obama is threatening to turn the peace process over to the international community if it remains deadlocked until the fall. In the meantime there may or may not be a resumption of talks on Monday, depending on who you’re listening to.

All of this ignores the most salient factor of all.

Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not possible because Islam won’t permit it and militates against it. (emphasis supplied)

Islam is a religion of intolerance toward unbelievers, with perhaps the most hatred reserved for Jews because of their ancient refusal to recognize Muhammad as the last and greatest prophet and Allah as the supreme being.

This hatred of Jews translates into a hatred of Israel, which in turn translates into an obligation to obliterate and remove it from the face of the earth. When Palestinians and other Muslims demonize, vilify, attack and kill Israelis, Jews, they are really doing so in the name of Islam and because Islam commands them to. Israelis, Jews, are infidels and are seen as occupiers and interlopers at best with no right to the land they live on, historical or otherwise. Their presence is viewed as an affront and an insult.

Nothing will change until these misguided beliefs do. Since they go back 1400 years, are rooted in the Koran and are basic to Islamic thought and action peace is not going to come soon, if it ever does. The best we can hope for is some sort of grudging ceasefire, enforced by a third party that isn’t the United Nations. Islam itself is the cause of the conflict in the Middle East and there is no possibility of peace until Islamic countries recognize and accept Israel’s legitimate right to exist and stop trying to annihilate it. That is a contradiction of terms so don’t hold your breath.

Israel ignores or glosses over this at her peril and so does the U.S. Israel is the Little Satan but America is the Great Satan and also in the line of fire.

Peace? Forget it in this day and age. Maybe in another 1400 years though…”

As I observed in the course of emailing this piece to a friend of mine, it is the clearest, most concise, most complete, and most correct treatment of the problem that I have ever encountered – beautiful in its simplicity, stripped of political correctness concerns and geopolitical nuance, it tells the story in as magnificently direct and truthful a manner as I have ever seen it done. It is quite simply the bottom line - no matter how the Arabs may try to paper over the real nature of the differences that divide the region. People may disagree, but none who have really studied the problem in depth would be in their number. Israel has reached out time and time again to establish peace, each time to be rebuffed with some flimsy pretext of an excuse, followed by another intifada.

The Flotilla Fiasco In Perspective – What’s The Endgame Here? Another Holocaust In The Making

 By

Ken Eliasberg

            Continuing with our discussion of the fall out from Israel’s recent encounter with the Turkey Trot, i.e. Turkey’s “innocent” effort to provide “humanitarian” aid to the oppressed occupants of the beleaguered territory of Gaza. What’s all the fuss about? One country malevolently set about to run a legitimate blockade of another sovereign nation, gets caught in the act – an act resulting in 9 deaths and several serious injuries – and who gets blamed? Not the country that violated the blockade (a legitimate effort at self defense), but the country whose blockade was violated (by the way, the blockade of Gaza was a joint effort of Israel and Egypt). The irony of this situation, which, but for the existential threat that it poses, would, under other circumstances, be almost humorous. Indeed, a talk show host opened the discussion of the reaction to the Turkey Trot with this bit of dark humor: There are 4 prisoners in a jail cell, 1 is there for murdering 3 people, another for raping 5 women, a third for orchestrating a billion dollar ponzi scheme, and the fourth for having run a red light. The 4th person (the one who ran the red light) gets the death penalty. Query? Who is the 4th person? Israel!! The obvious point is that in a world of monstrous and murderous transgressors, Israel gets dumped on for an allegedly inappropriate act of self defense. There is only one thing wrong with the aforementioned joke – Israel didn’t do anything wrong; it didn’t run a red light – on the contrary, it was hit by a national vehicle that itself had run a red light. Of course facts don’t matter when it comes to Israel; Israel is to be condemned whatever the circumstances. Why is this the case, and why is it getting much worse – and, as a consequence, much more dangerous??

            Let’s take a look at what happened, why it happened, the reaction to what happened, and then let’s try to figure out what’s really going on here. At the outset it may be useful to remind the reader of who’s being blockaded and why. Gaza is under blockade because it is run by an admittedly terrorist organization, Hamas, who is dedicated to the destruction of Israel. And Gaza, since Israel’s removing itself from the territory, has been the source of nothing but terror. And, once Hamas took over, there was never even a possibility of peacefully resolving the Gaza situation – ergo an understandable effort to contain the territory and, as a consequence, reduce the danger posed by a more heavily armed Hamas. In this regard, bear in mind that Hamas is Iran’s surrogate in the area (as is Hezbollah in Lebanon on Israel’s northern border), and that Iran has oft expressed its desire (and intent) to destroy Israel. Is Israel not entitled to act in its own defense? And, for present purposes, let’s not argue about whether they could have acted in a different manner – one that might meet with more universal acceptance. Let’s just concede that every sovereign nation – or any individual or group of individuals – has the unconditional right to defend itself. So, for purposes of this column, let’s not split hairs over whether Israel could have gone about enforcing the blockade in a less confrontational manner, e.g. disable the ship’s rudder and tow it to port (by the way, I think that the passengers really wanted this confrontation – why? martyrdom for the dead, and lots of grief for Israel). Why do I say this? Two reasons: (1) The most telling reason being that the flotilla spokeswoman, Greta Berlin, announced to the Agence France Press a week before the sailing that “this mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it’s about breaking Israel’s siege,” and (2) many of the passengers were either in the service of, or linked to. an organization with a direct connection to, Al-Qaeda and were armed with weapons with which they greeted the Israeli commandos, hardly the reaction of passengers on a peaceful mission.

            In addition, the commander of the ship made no effort to comply with the commandos request to yield to inspection, making it perfectly clear that it was the flotilla’s intention to run the blockade. Thus, we have a sovereign nation’s legitimate blockade being intentionally violated by another sovereign nation. Who is at fault? Can there be any question – Turkey!! But I assure you that that is not the way the mainstream media, the U.N., and Jew-haters around the world will view Turkey’s transgression. Israel will once again be treated as a pariah. And, in siding with Israel in this instance, I am not for a moment arguing that either Israel is perfect, nor am I suggesting that every attack on Israel is rooted in anti-semitism (although I strongly believe that most are). I am saying that whatever be the merits of Israel’s position in other areas and on other subjects, in this instance she did no wrong. Again, acting in your own defense cannot, under virtually any set of circumstances, be viewed as wrong. Let’s see, North Korea just sank a South Korean vessel (killing some 40 sailors), Iran is hurtling toward nuclear weapons, Sudanese Muslims, under the aegis of their government, have murdered hundreds of thousands (perhaps millions) of Sudanese Christians, and the world sort of goes tsk, tsk. Israel takes a modest step in its own defense, and the world is up in arms. Why? Serious violations of human rights are occurring all over the world, committed by some of the world’s most powerful countries, and the commission of such is dealt with in a rather tame manner by the community of nations; compare this with any act of Israel, no matter how reasonable in manner and modest in nature, and the result of such a comparison is telling. Toward what end you might ask?

            Why the need to constantly criticize, demonize, marginalize, and isolate Israel from the community of nations. The goal of all of this is to delegitimize Israel, leading eventually to Israel’s extinction. What’s really involved here in this intensifying effort to demonize Israel? All these efforts to delegitimize Israel are made with a view to setting the stage for another Holocaust. I suspect that many, including some who may even be among Israel’s friends, may feel that I am taking a much too apocalyptic view of the situation in the Middle East. But, in my opinion, such a dim view of my assessment is to be expected from Israel’s enemies. Also, it may come as too much of a shock for those of Israel’s friends inclined to view world affairs in a more pollyanish manner (these would be the same people who saw Hitler as more silly than dangerous). Besides, I have always felt that to view any potentially dangerous situation with a significant degree of caution is advisable. And when someone says that they want to not just kill you, but to destroy your entire country, it is better to be safe than sorry and err on the side of excessive caution. In this case I would prefer to b a “chicken little” than a pollyana.

            The situation was succinctly and compellingly put in perspective by Charles Krauthammer in his June 4th Washington Post column, entitled Krauthammer: Those troublesome Jews (also appearing simultaneously in The Seattle Times, under the title Israel refuses to commit suicide) when, in conclusion, he observed:

            “The world is tired of these troublesome Jews, 6 million – that number again - -

             hard by the Mediterranean, refusing every invitation to national suicide. For

             which they are relentlessly demonized, ghettoized and constrained from

             defending themselves, even as the more committed anti-Zionists - - Iranian

             in particular – openly prepare a more final solution.”

            Well and truly put, Charles! What will happen here in the end? In the not too distant future - I strongly suspect that Israel will take an incredible amount of heat, ending in the blockade either being terminated or put in the hands of some ineffectual international body like the U.N. (does it get any more ineffectual than that?). In the distant future – Israel is in mortal danger; it has never been more of an international outcast, with the potentially fatal blow being struck by Obama’s currently diminishing, and, in the future, possibly totally withdrawing U.S. support. U.S.-Israel relations have never been more strained; no U.S. president has ever been less supportive of Israel than Obama (in an apparent effort to curry favor with Islam – an effort that has thus far borne little fruit, if any).

The Turkish Flotilla Fiasco: Israel “Guilty Until Proven Guilty”

By

Ken Eliasberg

                        The recent Israeli effort to prevent a Turkish vessel from running the blockade of Gaza has, as is now well known, ended in tragedy – a tragedy that will end, as do all Middle Eastern tragedies - with Israel being blamed for intemperate conduct. In this regard, it seems that any act of self defense on Israel’s part is intemperate. While it was alleged that the flotilla was carrying humanitarian aid, its refusal to lend itself to inspection, plus the obvious character and behavior of the political activists that greeted the Israeli commandos, make it abundantly clear that the purpose of this Turkish voyage was something quite over and beyond the desire to deliver humanitarian aid.

                        Perhaps a brief introductory reminder of the circumstances that prevail in Gaza is in order. Gaza is run by Hamas, a conceded terrorist organization, that assumed control over the territory after savagely brutalizing the other (not yet labeled terrorist) Palestinian organization contending for power, i.e. Fatah. Gaza has been an ongoing threat to Israeli security, lobbing thousands of rockets into Israel - aimed at civilian targets – before Israel’s effort to put a stop to it, i.e. Operation Cast Lead. Consequently, Israel wants to prevent Hamas from securing additional weaponry with which to continue its harassment of Israel’s citizens – ergo the blockade.

                        1. What’s a blockade? A permissible method of isolating or quarantining a territory in an effort to minimize the danger posed by that territory. We and our allies used it extensively during WWII. Kennedy used it effectively during the Cuban missile crisis. In short, blockades can be appropriate and are quite legal.

2. This particular blockade. Israel acted in accordance with the terms of the blockade. That is, it advised the flotilla that it would be in violation of the blockade if it proceeded; that it was to dock and submit to inspection. When the Turkish ships involved refused to honor the request to dock, one of their number was boarded by Israeli commandos.

3. What happened? The commandos were met by a group of what were clearly political activists who were violently aggressive in their response to the Israeli incursion. The Israeli commando’s weapons of first choice were guns firing paint balls. When this failed to secure the desired response, and the violence on the part of the passengers escalated, the commandos were armed with, and used, weapons of a more lethal nature. As a consequence of the confrontation, 4 commandos were wounded (by spears, bars, and a gun taken from a disarmed commando) and 9 of the belligerent passengers were killed. In short, the peaceful passengers (some of whom, it was subsequently determined, were agents of an organization with links to Al-Qaeda) initiated the violence that ended in 9 of them being killed (martyrs to the cause of delegitimizing Israel). The boat was then taken to port, searched, and was found to be weapon free.

Query? If the boats had nothing to hide, then why did they refuse to submit to a search? Clearly, for no other reason than to run the blockade, put Israel in a defensive position, giving Israel but 2 choices; (1) honor its blockade and do exactly what it did, or (2) dishonor its blockade and face the very real possibility that, if they allowed the blockade to be dishonored, future blockade running ships would most assuredly be carrying something a bit more lethal. Indeed, this was clearly a test case intended to either (1) break the blockade, or (2) better yet, to set the stage for demonizing Israel for its forceful action (action that the response of the passengers made absolutely necessary). And, of course, such demonizing reactions followed quickly on the heels of this event (I would be very surprised if such did not issue from the left-wing columnist of this publication).

As a consequence of the “flotilla fiasco,” as it is being called in some circles, Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, cancelled a scheduled meeting with Obama (an effort to allegedly treat Netanyahu somewhat more respectfully than he was treated on his last visit –when he was ushered in through a back door, treated rather brusquely (that is, in a manner not at all in keeping with that customarily accorded heads of state). Why? Because Obama was concerned that he might be losing some support in the Jewish community, a community that is only slightly less reliable in its support for the Democrat Party than the black community – 78% of the Jewish voters in 2008 cast their vote for Obama).

Netanyahu returned to Israel where he addressed the problem in a statement to the public in which he indicated that Israel’s conduct was appropriate and he stood behind it, notwithstanding the demands for an act of contrition on Israel’s part, issuing from the usual anti-Israeli suspects. In his statement, he pointed out that this was not a “love boat”; on the contrary, it was a hate boat, which, indeed, it was. He addressed all of the circumstances, gave the appropriate explanations, and concluded with this observation: Israel is guilty until it is proven guilty.” The observation is, unfortunately, correct, and it is an observation that applies to no other country in the world, no matter how inappropriate the actions of that country might be. Take for example, the outrageous conduct of the Sudanese government which, to this day, goes unaddressed. Israel, on the other hand, is always deemed to be in the wrong no matter what action it might take in its own defense. Query? What do you think the U.S. would do if Mexico was lobbing rockets in to San Diego?

The bottom line here is quite simple: The blockade is legal, appropriate, and necessary; that Turkey intentionally – with malevolent purpose – chose to run the blockade; and, as a consequence, blame should be heaped upon Turkey and not on Israel. But I assure you that that’s not the way it’s going to go down.

Why Turkey, one might ask? Good question. Ralph Peters, a solid authority, who I respect, opined that Turkey was trying to move itself into a position of greater authority in the Islamist hierarchy, the goal of which is a world-wide caliphate. And Turkey, who is currently being taken over by its Islamist factions, would like to see itself at the center of this caliphate, as it was during the reign of the Ottoman Empire. There may be some truth to this charge, but I cannot provide assurances on the subject. What it is safe to say is that this endeavor was an effort to put Israel in an embarrassing position and thus lay the groundwork for further isolating Israel in the arena of world opinion.

All Three Navy Seals Acquitted: Sanity Prevails – At Least For The Moment

By

Ken Eliasberg

            I’m sure many of you have been following with some interest (and a substantial measure of disbelief) the court-martial progress of 3 Navy Seals who had the audacity to violate the integrity of an Islamic barbarian terrorist who orchestrated the killing of 4 Blackwater agents serving in Iraq (thereafter showing their essential good will by desecrating their victims dead bodies – we are really facing an insane enemy. Lodged in the 7th century and not only wanting very much to remain there, but to take us back to that dark age as well).            One of these poor chaps, unable to contain himself, punched this bastard (oops, I mean prisoner) in the mouth, bloodying his lip - can you imagine the nerve of this guy. The other 2 just stood by and did not come to the aid of this murderous monster – where were their priorities?

I am, of course, speaking tongue in cheek – only because I am so outraged to see my country sink to this point – where heroes are court martialled and Islamist scumbags are coddled. What the has gone wrong with America? It’s bad enough that we refuse to take the enemy seriously – heck, if you mention Jihad or Islamofascist, (or, until recently, terrorist) you might expect a visit from the speech police or be accused by some left-wing nut case of being a bigot. But we have gone well beyond that; we now side with the enemy. We pursue members of the CIA or attorneys in the Justice Department for making earnest efforts to further the cause of national security by gathering much needed intelligence, but demonstrate some absurd sensitivity to the integrity of these miserable terrorist creeps.

In any event, I reported on this case (these cases) when it (they) first broke in December, expressing at the time my complete disbelief that a situation like this could even arise – that we had gone so far down the left-wing path of self destruction that we were now eating our own. Now, I realize that some member of the left-wing elite (effete) – some dim bulb, residing in academia no doubt – will crawl out from under the academic rock in which he has maintained a substantial (and undeserved) sinecure and argue that we are not really attacking our own; we are merely asserting our fundamental moral goodness so that the rest of the world can see how wonderful we are. Puuullleease!!! These blood sucking parasites on the left who hold our young folks hostage while they pump them full of Marxist nonsense are killing this country!

I have followed the disgusting path of their progress with interest and contempt – interest to try an understand the phenomenon of how allegedly intelligent people turn on their own country and contempt for their having done so. Now, of course, they argue that they are really patriots, defending their country by pointing out the error of its ways. No, they are America-hating useful idiots who are sucking the vitality out of their country. Am I suggesting that America makes no mistakes? Of course not! What I am suggesting is that, in the course, of cleaning out the bath water, you try not to throw out the baby.

I have been aware of the America-hating left for a number of decades – hell, much to my chagrin I was confronted with it here in this very newspaper when I first started writing for it. A professor, later to become a columnist, wrote a letter to the editor in which he made the case, in essence, that 9/11 was perfectly understandable since, in war, there are no “innocent civilians.” I was a bit taken aback since I was unaware that the country at large considered itself at war; hell, the Clintons (and previous administrations) had gone to great length to treat previous assaults on our integrity as merely criminal acts, to be prosecute accordingly.

Moreover, the good professor (God how it galls me that imbeciles like this our indoctrinating our young people) seemed to be suggesting that, regardless of the technicality of being at war, American foreign policy was really behind the displeasure that we have incurred abroad. By the way, I might note in passing that that displeasure is both selective and evanescent, lasting only as long as they don’t need us; thereafter, we are once more restored to their good graces. Therein lies the problem of trying to determine policy based on popularity and consensus.We have been hated – until needed - for well over a century; I remember my confusion when serving abroad in our Armed Forces a decade after our liberating Europe over the degree of anti-Americanism. I shall deal with anti-Americanism in a later series; for present purposes let me just observe that anti-Americanism abroad is fairly meaningless; leadership is about principles, not popularity. And, if you do the right thing, you can be sure that half the country or half the world, as the case may be, is not going to love you. Don’t worry about it; just do the right thing!

The anti-Americanism that bothers me, and for which I find neither explanation nor excuse, is the domestic kind that emanates from our left-wing in this country – this is despicable; I cannot abide it, and I intend to address it at some length down the road

Back to the Navy Seals – Justice did indeed prevail; the shame is that it ever had to be tasked to do so.

South Park, Fatwas And Freedom Of Speech III

By

Ken Eliasberg

            This brings us back to our point of beginning – the South Park fatwa, which read as follows:

      “An episode of ‘South Park’ that continued a story line involving the

            Prophet Mohammad was shown Wednesday night on Comedy Central

            with audio bleeps and image blocks reading ‘CENSORED’ after a

            Muslim group warned the show’s creators that they could face

            violence for depicting the holy Islamic prophet. Revolution Muslim,

            a group based in New York, wrote on its Web site that the ‘South

            Park’ creators Matt Stone and Trey Parker ‘will probably wind up

            like Theo Van Gogh.”

Nothing subtle here; this is a direct threat on the lives of the creators of this episode of South Park. I don’t know about you, but I find this not just unacceptable, but despicable. In simpler times, we might have sought out the authors of this threat and saw to it that what goes around comes around. Today, we are much too civilized to even contemplate, let alone do, anything quite so violent. Indeed, we are much too soft to do anything but roll over and hope – nay, pray – that Obama’s pearls sooth these savage beasts into a calmer state.

            Once again, a good number of media panjandrums have chosen to cut and run, hiding behind obeisance to Muslim sensitivities as an excuse for their cowardly behavior. However, among a good number of our other journalists, this threat seems to have constituted a bridge too far – they see the danger to free speech if we keep yielding to these religious fanatics (a small number of Muslims, say 150 to 200 million or so, according to Daniel Pipes, whose website I wholeheartedly recommend). And I’m not trying to be either cute, facetious, or disrespectful here; we are not dealing with 20 or 30 thousand nut jobs  – according to Pipes, who is an authority on matters of this nature, we are dealing with 10 to 15% of the Muslim world. Since the Muslim world contains about 1.4 billion people, you do the math. And, please spare me any nonsense that I am attacking the religion of peace – even if the bad guys number 200 million, that still leaves 1.2 billion good guys to reign them in and take back their religion. Unfortunately, the good guys, notwithstanding numerous declarations as to their displeasure with their violent cohorts, seem to be either unable or unwilling to do much about reigning the bad guys in. Which means that we shall have to or perish in failing to do so. Those our the stakes; they want to establish a world-wide Caliphate of which we are to be apart. No thanks! But that is exactly what will happen in time if we do not step on them, and step on them hard now.

We cannot afford to be passive, let alone cowardly, on a matter of this nature; the 2 most important freedoms conferred on us by our founding fathers are those of speech and religion. To sit back while violence is being done to these freedoms is to surrender everything worthwhile that our forefathers have given us with their blood, sweat and tears. I recommend a brilliant piece on this matter by one Daniel Greenfield in the Canada Free press website on April 28th entitled They Don’t Have to Silence Us, If We Silence Ourselves First. In it, Greenfield makes these observations:

“Recently we rediscovered the simple fact that even on Cable television, on a network where anything goes, one thing does not go.

Depicting Mohammad. Even in a bear suit. That same iron law has

been unofficially passed in country after country, where operas,

newspapers, books, television programs have been censored in order to avoid offending the people who might kill them if they were not

censored. Speech and image have been blocked, cut out, snipped and silenced. Not because anyone has actually been killed, but because

attempts have been made to kill some people. Which is enough to make free speech go the way of the Dodo.

And that is exactly the point. They don’t have to silence us, if we silence ourselves first. They don’t have to oppress us, if we oppress

ourselves first. They don’t have to demand our surrender and submission,if we surrender and submit first. Islam, we love it. Sharia law, we’ll gladly adopt it. Free speech, it has to have its limits. Women’s rights, we’ll have to walk a fine line. Freedom. Ha, what freedom. We’ve already traded that away for nice set of multicultural

Bongos, a few curry shops, a glass of arack and a leatherbound copy of the Koran.”

Extreme? Not at all! This is the path we are walking down if we give in to these murderous religious fanatics.

            More recently, Muslim activists have demanded that the evangelist Franklin  Graham be censored and disinvited from another forum, the National Day of Prayer, an event scheduled with members of Congress (you may recall they were successful in having him disinvited from a prayer service at the Pentagon for his unfavorable observations re Islam. For further discussion, see Muslims want Franklin Graham censored again – ‘Our nation’s founders wouldn’t have tolerated it, and neither should we’ by Bob Unruh at worldnetdaily on April 27th.

            By the way killing you is typically one of their more extreme efforts to silence you. First, Islamists try to embarrass by accusing you of being an Islamaphobe – a bigot. And, if that doesn’t work, suing you into submission. Typically, they don’t hope to win, just bankrupt you in a lawsuit since they have the funds to do it. These types and organizations are well funded, with resources being made generously available by Mideast countries, usually Saudi Arabia through many of its numerous potentates., see e.g. Funding Evil – How Terrorism Is Financed – and How to Stop It by Rachel Ehrenfeld, Bonus Books (2003)  We must stand up to these bullies, terrorists, killers, and nut cases.

            And please spare me any crap about Islamophobia. This country does not have an “Islamophobia” problem; we have an Islamic intimidation problem. A phobia is an irrational fear of something. It seems clear to me that not to be afraid of something or someone or a group of someones who want to kill you (and, as noted, have succeeded in certain cases, e.g. Theo Van Gogh) is quite rational. Indeed, not to take such threats seriously would be irrational. Moreover, while we are constantly being advised of a Muslim backlash (recall the general who, after the Fort Hood disaster, was more concerned with a  possible effect on diversity than the safety of his soldiers), but there hasn’t been any, despite various honor killings, threats and other nonsense. Frankly, I am a lot more concerned with an actual Muslim

“frontlash” (such as what happened at Fort Hood, or what could have happened with that screwball on the plane to Detroit who set his underpants on fire (thus presenting him with some problems with those 72 virgins unless Allah restores his genitals in the course of his passage)) than I am with any potential or possible “backlash.” If we don’t respond to these depredations then we don’t deserve our liberties.

            What to do? Stop worrying about a Muslim backlash – really peaceful Muslims should (and, hopefully, will) applaud efforts to drum the bad guys out of the corps and restore the good name (and peaceful image) of Islam. In the South Park case, arrest the owners of the website that made the death threat, find out everything about them and their funding sources, try them for inciting murder, jail them, and then deport them.

South Park, Fatwas, And Freedom Of Speech (cont.)

By

Ken Eliasberg

            It is important to continue with the case of Salman Rushdie and the Satanic Verses. Why? Certainly not because it was a great book; it wasn’t. What is important is to note not just the intensity of the reaction of Muslim extremists – their murderous rage – but the period of time over which it has endured. Rushdie has been under protective custody for the entire 21-year period since the fatwa was issued (the issuing Ayatollah having long since gone on to his great reward – query, does an Ayatollah get more than the customarily alloted 72 virgins?). And to show that the intensity has not diminished to any serious extent, Rushdie’s being Knighted by Queen Elizabeth II (for “services to literature” for the body of his work, not for the Verses) only served to stir up this boiling pot of rage, eliciting protests and demonstrations once again in various sectors of the Muslim world. And these protests were not just aimed at Rushdie; they were aimed at England as well for conferring such a distinction on this blasphemer. And, as previously noted, Rushdie was born a Muslim and, while not “really religious,” in an attempt to calm the murderous passions of his would be assassins, in 1990 “he issued a statement in which he claimed he had renewed his Muslim faith, had repudiated the attacks on Islam in his novel and was committed to working for better understanding of the religion across the world.” However, Rushdie later said that he was only ‘pretending,’ a very poor course of action, in my opinion – not that a genuine offering might have placated those who wished to do him harm (no, to do him in), but certainly a retraction could only be calculated to further inflame them (the quoted material is from wikipedia). I don’t know his current religious status, if he has one.

             And the book, I understand (I have not read it, only glanced through it and read various accounts of its content) was not aimed at holding the Prophet up to contempt or ridicule; it just took enough liberties with what appears to be  sufficiently sacrosanct to certain members of the Muslim community  to get its author on some Islamist “hit list” - where he seems to have remained for lo these many years.

            Then there was the case of Theo Van Gogh, who, by producing the movie Submission (a depiction of the subordinate status of women in the Muslim world)

failed to be quite as fortunate as Rushdie – he actually managed to get himself killed. While riding his bicycle in what used to be the peaceful streets of tolerant (to a fault) Holland, he was accosted by some Muslim youth, shot, had his throat slit (while trying to bargain with his unreceptive assassin), and finally, lest anyone not get the message, this somewhat overheated “youth” (code for young Islamists who go on the rampage in Europe) pinned a message to his chest in which the reason for the deed was offered up, thereby informing others who might be so short sighted as to follow in Van Gogh’s path. And, by the way, this bit of unpleasantness was referenced in the note sent to the South Park creators.

            The next major assault on free speech (understand that I am only hitting the highlights in these columns, leaving out honor killings, sexual mutilation, and the routine verbal attacks on Jews (apes and pigs) and Christians that appear in Mosques, schools, and Arab media throughout the world) occurred in 2005 when Danish cartoonists took the unfortunate liberty of poking fun at the Prophet in a series of cartoons in their newspaper Jyllands-Posten; this touched off a nuclear reaction (speaking verbally here) throughout the Muslim world, leading to the deaths of well over 100 people and spurred on by numerous Imams (Muslim holy men), greatly aggravating the situation (who ever heard of holy men provoking murderous rage; somehow holy and inciting to violence has always – at least up to now - seemed like a bit of an oxymoron to me). In any event, they made their point, intimidating most publications not to follow suit, and in an appalling act of journalistic cowardice, cloaked in saccharine notes of sensitivity to Islamic feelings – a courtesy not extended to the sensibilities of Christians, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc., etc. – the journalistic media, for the most part, caved.

There were, however, notable exceptions, demonstrating that there are some journalists with the courage to support our right to free speech. Unfortunately, Yale University, that bastion of truth and scholarship, was not among them. Its University Press “decided to expunge reproductions of the cartoons along with all other images of Muhammad from a scholarly book entitled The Cartoons that Shook the World by professor Jytte Klausen. News of the decision sparked criticism from some prominent Yale alumni as well from the American Association of University Professors. Yale defended its rationale by saying it feared inciting violence if the images were published.” Flemming Rose, the cultural editor who commissioned the cartoons, has described Yale’s action as “[giving] in to intimidation…not even intimidation but an imagined intimidation” Which indeed it is – how disgraceful; one of our oldest and most prestigious Universites providing a poignant and compelling exercise in cowardice to its students. One can only ask, what the hell has happened to our schools – locales where truth (and courage) were supposed to flourish. Indeed, the only alleged purpose for providing tenure to our teachers was to provide them with the security to speak out. Apparently, radical Islam has breached the walls intended to provide such security, and, in the process, launched a successful attack on our right to free speech (as well as the right and expectation of our students to secure a decent education).

            That said, there were publishers and journalists who did display great courage in republishing the cartoons. I say great courage because these religious fanatics are not kidding – they are deadly serious. Several attempts on the life of the Danish cartoonist have been made, and all sorts of other reprisals have been launched on things Danish. One act of courage is particularly noteworthy; that is the act of the Canadian publisher Ezra Levant, whose paper the Western Standard

did have the courage necessary to publish the cartoons as well as reprint excerpts from Mark Steyn’s book America Alone, in which Steyn (a brilliant author, journalist, and commentator) outlined, inter alia, the looming demographic disaster in Europe. For their troubles they were charged with the rough equivalent of hate crimes (Islamophobia, apparently an insult of such magnitude as to take on criminal characteristics) by the Canadian Islamic Congress and were hauled before several of Canada’s Human Rights Commissions (a kangaroo court-like arrangement which places insults, real or imaginary, above the rule of law; these commissions apparently are to be found in many, if not all , of Canada’s provinces). Typically, a defendant or insulter, depending on how one views such matters, rarely wins one of these absurd and disgraceful imbroglios, either because they haven’t got the money to contest the charge, or because the Commission is completely in the tank for the insulted party. But Levant and Steyn had the wisdom and courage (and funds) to do so. Why? Because they saw the consequences of failing to do so – the extinction of fundamental rights as well as the further diminution of journalistic standards. I shall not elaborate on their efforts; it would be too time consuming. The details of their struggle, in which they were victorious, are set out in two books which I wholeheartedly endorse and recommend. First, Mark Steyn’s book, Lights Out – Islam, free speech and the twilight of the west, Stockade Books (2009) and Shake Down – How Our Government Is Undermining Democracy in the Name of Human Rights by Ezra Levant, McClelland and & Stewart (2009). These books are must reads for anyone concerned with the continued viability of our right to free speech - indeed, concerned over  the continued viability of Western Civilization. (to be continued and completed).

South Park Runs Afoul Of Islam: Score – Fatwas (And Sharia) 1, Freedom Of Speech 0

By

Ken Eliasberg

            I hate to interrupt my 1-year report card on Obama, but so much of significance is happening and some of it requires immediate attention. I realize that at this rate, I’ll finish Obama’s 1-year report card just about in time for his 2-year report card. Actually, it really doesn’t matter; I could sum it up succinctly by just saying that he is well on his way to becoming the worst president in U.S. history; indeed, when he’s finished U.S. history itself may just be finished. That said, for those who like substantiating data – you know, anyone but lefties, who sustain themselves on fluffy feelings, Utopian dreams, and “just opinions” – I shall deal with Obama’s first year (even if it takes me a year to do it) as quickly as I can. Moving right along, we have been bombarded with happenings that are both interesting and revealing – particularly the Arizona immigration legislation (which, despite the furor, is both appropriate and quite reasonable); the revelation of highly compensated officials at the S.E.C. fiddling over pornographic web sites while the financial sector was in meltdown (fiddling to the tune of thousands of hours: actually, we are probably safer if our government people concern themselves with porn than if they deign to act in our supposed “best interests”); the court martial (and acquittal) of 2 Navy Seals  for having been party to a third Navy Seal’s slapping a terrorist who killed a number of Americans (have we completely lost our minds, let alone any sense of proportion?); the financial failure and bailout of Greece (and its world-wide implications); and a fatwa for 2 creators of a South Park episode. For purposes of this column, I want to focus exclusively on South Park for it pointedly indicates just how far down the path of decline and dhimmitude (submission to, and, as a consequence, obeisance with respect to Islam, i.e. acceptance of second-class status in our own country) we have allowed the left to take us.

            What am I talking about? Simply this, from an excellent column by Rich Trzupek at frontpagemage.com on April 28th, entitled The “South Park” Revolution:

            “When the ever-offensive creators of the popular Comedy Central cartoon ‘South Park’ recently featured the Prophet Mohammed in a bear costume, they provoked a veiled death threat from some Islamist fanatics in New York and set off a firestorm about free speech in the process. The cable network’s cowardly response to Trey Parker and Matt Stone’s perfidy – namely, censoring the show and bleeping out any reference to the prophet – unintentionally triggered the kind of backlash that radical, fascist, jihadists should have earned a long time ago. It is ironic that it took a cartoon to spotlight the issue so brightly.”

            Trzupek goes on to highlight the real point (if that is not already apparent):

            “As a Catholic, I have often been offended by Trey Parker and Matt Stone. The same can be said by anyone who practices Judaism, Buddhism, Hindism, or just about any other ‘ism’ under the sun. The difference is that ‘South Park’ could poke fun at Jesus, Moses, Buddha, Krishna, Joseph Smith, David Blaine, or practically any other religious or cult figure, without any fear of repercussion. There is, of course, one exception. Muslim fundamentalists can’t abide it when the prophet Mohammed’s teachings are questioned, much less when the prophet himself is mocked. For a religion as certain that it has a direct pipeline to the absolute, unalterable word of God as Islam is, too many Muslims are awfully – and too often violently – insecure about that point.”

            This is an incredibly important matter, and this, hopefully, may well be the time when we address it. South Park is not an isolated event, and there is nothing aberrational about it. We have a long history of insane reactions by Islamic fundamentalists to any slight -  real or imaginary; significant or insignficant – to their religion. Now I am not for a moment saying that indelicate remarks about any religion are polite, courteous, or pleasant. What I am saying is that this is America, and our right to free speech is the most important of our rights. And the right is aimed only at offensive speech; no Constitutional protection is necessary for inoffensive speech. Our Founding Fathers, in giving us this right, contemplated just such indignities – again, otherwise, no such protection would be necessary.

            I’ll tell you whose speech is a violation of everything this country stands for – it is the speech of the Islamist nut cases who issued this death threat (“fatwa” in Islamic terms). We cannot - indeed, we must not  - allow this kind of conduct to go on. If those “peaceful” Muslims we so often hear about are incapable of reigning in the fundamentalists in their midst – you know, the guys who they allege are taking liberties with, and, in the course of doing so, doing violence to, the teachings of the Prophet and the message of Allah, then we have to take it out of their hands and put an end to it now – not later, right now, before it becomes an acceptable practice and we all become dhimmis. That is, either Islam has a problem with certain of its constituent elements, or we have a problem with Islam.

            When I speak of a long history, to what am I referring? For purposes of this column I shall go no further back than that whack job, the Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Supreme Leader of Iran (and the direct result of Jimmy Carter’s inspired leadership (and abandonment of the Shah)) who issued one of those fatwas to Salmon Rushdie in 1989 for his authorship of The Satanic Verses (although were I inclined to go much further back, I do not believe that I would find that freedom of speech has ever flourished to any significant degree in any Islamic country). Rushdie, a Muslim, residing in Great Britain, published The Satanic Verses (the “Verses”) in 1988, and, in addition to the Ayatollah’s fatwa, it provoked denunciations, protests, and riots throughout the Muslim world. The Verses, inspired in part by the life of Muhammad, while allegedly drawing on Qur’anic verses, was a novel set in contemporary times. In any event, it provoked a tsunami of rage in the Muslim world. Not being too active in politics at the time, I dismissed the event as the aberrational actions of a lunatic, who, through an unfortunate turn of events, had been allowed to seize control of a contemporary civilization. Also, having spent time with some Iranians while vacationing in Spain during my tour of duty in the U.S. Air Force, I had gained the impression that Persia (Iran) was a bit more evolved than your typical Islamic country. Khomeini changed all that. Also, I naively thought that no religion would allow any of its teachers to counsel violence, mayhem, and murder, let alone practice it so enthusiastically. I was wrong, and ensuing events would clearly demonstrate just how wrong I was (to be continued).

Obama’s Foreign Policy: Iran – A Touch Of Irony

By

 Ken Eliasberg

            Without intending to belabor our concern over, and treatment of, Iran – although it is a subject well worth belaboring – it raises too many important questions to allow of only brief treatment. And these questions are rife with irony. To all but our left-wing friends, Obama’s treament of Iran should present a  real moment of déjà vu. Of what? Of our interminable demands on Iraq on the subject of weapons of mass destruction. You may recall that the world kept challenging Saddam Hussein on the subject – to the tune of 17 resolutions by the U.N. (a feckless, corrupt, and anti-American organization) – to no avail. Indeed, you may also recall that on at least one occasion Saddam was so frightened of running afoul of the U.N.’s wishes that he threw its inspectors out. Finally, to the great displeasure of our friends on the left, the U.S. invaded Iraq and deposed this petty tyrant. In passing, it is worth noting again that not only was the U.N. remiss on this occasion, a couple of permanent members of the U.N. Security Council had sweetheart deals with Iran – in violation of the food-for-oil arrangement then in place – which assured that the organization’s failure to intercede was due as much to its corruption as to its fundamental incompetence. Why is this relevant? Because we are once again facing the threat of a maniacal regime’s coming into possession of nuclear weapons, and the left’s reaction to such unpleasantries assures the world that nothing will be done.

            Oh, by the way, what exactly did the left propose to do with respect to the danger posed by Saddam Hussein – a danger that the intelligence component of every major power acknowledged? Nothing!! They would have gone along with 17 more meaningless resolutions of the U.N. Instead, since George Bush acted like a leader should, took matters in to his own hands and deposed the miserable tyrant, the left was left with nothing but to bemoan the irresponsible leadership of George Bush – they gave us Bush derangement syndrome. If they were only as brave and reliable in attacking America’s enemies as they are in attacking Republicans, America would be a much safer place. But I forget, to the left, Republicans are the enemy. Actually, to the left, America is the enemy. You know, if our foreign policy were not so heavy handed (or whatever) we would be loved by every despot in the world. And why not; they’d have no reason to fear us.

            And Iran’s acquiring nuclear weapons poses a far greater danger than that ever presented by Iraq. Why? Because Saddam Hussein was a secular nut case who wanted to preside over the region (thus posing a serious threat to the world’s oil supply, to be sure), but he was too smart and too sane (when compared to a bunch of maniacally homicidal Mullahs) to ever press his luck and push the U.S. envelope too far. Also, there is the minor matter that he, unlike his suicidal Islamist counterparts in Hamas and Hezbullah (Iran’s surrogates in Gaza and Lebanon) wanted to live. Iran, on the other hand, is run by a bunch of religious maniacs who wish to produce a world wide Caliphate. In addition, as noted, their terrorist tentacles reach into every corner of the Middle East. Their surrogates, (again, Hezbullah and Hamas) in particular, are extraordinarily dangerous and incapable of being controlled.The Mullahs in Iran and the head of Hezbullah (Nisrallah) have both observed that they would willingly -indeed, enthusiastically - take millions in losses if that were the price they had to pay for eliminating Israel. And Israel, knowing of their homicidal antipathy, cannot afford to take these assertions lightly.

            Thus, it is an absolute certainty that if Iran should nuclearize, their surrogates will have access to this type of weaponry. Isn’t this the very thing that Obama is running around the world allegedly trying to prevent – the proliferation of nuclear weapons, particularly where such proliferation would involve terrorists? So, let me get this straight – on the one hand, he is inveighing against nuclear proliferation, and, on the other, he is doing nothing but talking about (and to?) a country that poses the greatest threat to this happening. Oh, as noted, he has made the usual number of statements about the fact that we cannot allow Iran to nuclearize, but that’s about it – just the usual rhetorical blitzkrieg for which Obama is noted and which Iran has chosen to disregard. No, it’s worse than that – Iran hasn’t just disregarded Obama’s charmkrieg, and it hasn’t just thumbed its nose at the great one. It has done worse than that. In it’s most recent statement – via that equally charming fellow, Achmadinejad – it has accused Obama of being both inexperienced (which, to be sure, he is), but worse than that – he has accused Obama of being a cowboy. Now that’s it, God Damn it, Obama a cowboy? I thought that was a description appropriate only to George W. Bush.

            And, of course, notwithstanding proclamations to the contrary, there is no military option available; Obama’s left-wing base would not hear of it. Any sort of war-like response is completely unacceptable to his anti-war base (hell, those guys would not have even fought the Revolutionary War, let alone engaged a group of insane Persians). As noted, the only people that the left would go to war with are fellow Americans – you know, those damn Republicans. Which brings us to the left’s real bete noir Israel. The next thing you know – you know, after Obama’s call for sanctions proves to be either fruitless or meaningless – he’ll blame the whole damn thing on Israel. If only those Jews would give the Arabs whatever they wanted, the world would be at peace!

            What’s Israel’s position on this matter. Quite simple, Israel is faced with extinction; ergo, the matter is one of an existential nature to that beleaguered country. Iran, while denying the last holocaust, has promised to produce the next one (if given the opportunity). And Israel has no choice but to take the threat quite seriously; not to err on the side of caution is a risk that Israel cannot afford to take. Why not? Aside from the routine unpleasantries of an atomic attack, such are greatly increased in the case of a country the size of the State of Rhode Island, with most of its assets concentrated in a very few population centers. If Israel were to take unilateral action, not only would a war in the Middle East ensue, but she would incur the wrath of most of the rest of the world. Remember how the world reacted to Israel’s taking out Iraq’s nuclear facility at Osirac in 1981? Israel was treated like a pariah (despite the fact that her action probably saved countless American lives in both the first and second Gulf Wars).

The bottom line is simply this – Iran must not be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, and if it takes a war to prevent it then war it must be. Better to fight them before they acquire nuclear weapons than after they do.

That said there is no way that this is going to happen. Why not? Because the left will not fight any war, no matter how necessary, under any circumstances, and it is not that they are cowardly (although they may well be); rather it is about an ideological blindness that leads to a geopolitical paralysis. And that is why national security cannot be entrusted to the left.

OBAMA REPORT CARD V: How’s That “Fundamental Transformation” Doing? Too Well, I’m Afraid!

By

Ken Eliasberg

Let’s delve into the substance of Obama’s governance, i.e. less of who he appears to be and what he tells us about his plans and more of what he is doing, what he has done, and what he seeks to do (which, in the final analysis, tells you who he really is). We’ll do this by examining his policy efforts on both the national (domestic) and international (foreign) front. And, in doing this, I urge you to keep in mind his declared goal – of “fundamentally transforming” America (without ever really pinpointing where we are, what’s wrong with us, and why we need to be “fundamentally transformed,” let alone providing precise insight in to exactly what it is he wants to transform us into).

How’s he doing in his transformation effort? Not as well as he’d like to be doing (or at least not as well as his far left base would like him to be doing) – thanks in large part to members of his own party (and, more to the point, thanks to the American public which has communicated its displeasure over his policies to members of his party facing election in November) – but a lot better than is good for America. For background, and as a reference point, I direct the reader to two columns that I did on Obama in this paper on completion of his first 100 days in office: Policy: Obama’s Foreign Policy Initiatives –Kiss Up, Suck Up, And Fold Up, 4/23-29/09 and Obama’s Domestic Policy: Central Planning And Debt As Far As The Eye Can See, 4/30-5/6/09. The next 350 days have only served to solidify the observations I made and the conclusions I reached in those preliminary pieces, to wit, Obama is a statist and his goal is to convert us into a European welfare State (interestingly, at a time when those States are moving rightward as a result of at least partially recognizing the bankruptcy which their politics of the left have produced).

Obama’s stated transformational concerns (other than the economy, which he somewhat summarily dealt with in his Stimulus package – a package which seems to have stimulated little more than the creation of a significant number of new government jobs) were directed to the following areas: (1) On the international front, improving America’s image (by whispering sweet nothings in the ears of all of our enemies while throwing many of our friends under the bus); (2) healthcare, which he managed to bludgeon through the Congress by bribing, bullying, and borrowing against political capital from whatever source he could (but get it through he did); (3) energy (cap and trade, an extravagantly expensive, and completely unnecessary, program that would have bankrupted us - more deeply, that is, than we are already bankrupt) in an effort to placate his radical, left-wing global warming supporters, which, thankfully, died in the Senate (after passage by the House, who, under Nancy Pelosi, will apparently pass just about anything): and (4) education, on which his goal is to shackle it with further government intervention, e.g. having the government take over the student loan program (which he managed to do by sneaking it into the aforementioned health care reform legislation without any public debate whatsoever) as well as substantially revise the No Child Left Behind program. What is the common denominator of all of these efforts? Diminishing our power (and, as a consequence, our actual image abroad) while governmentalizing as much as possible here at home (and, as a consequence, destroying our economy). The aforementioned is only an overview of his efforts to fundamentally transform America; let’s examine these efforts in greater detail

Foreign Policy: Placate Enemies And Alienate Allies.- Shortly after his inauguration he embarked on a whirlwind worldwide tour, with particular emphasis on various Islamic centers, in an effort to enhance our popularity in these centers. Actually, his worldwide tour began before his inauguration with his speech in Berlin, which was intended to do two things: First, to establish some sort of foreign policy expertise, or, at the very least, the appearance of some sort of foreign policy expertise, an item conspicuous for its absence on his resume (and in some of the people who he has chosen to advise him on matters of this nature, e.g. Hillary Clinton) and second, to herald the coming of the geopolitical messiah. There is no doubt that Obama, a skilled speaker, feels that he can talk his way in, out, and through any situation (domestic and/or foreign), and there is no situation which will not yield to his abundance of charm. In this respect, how’s he doing? Not particularly well – apparently, there are limits to how far charm goes in the geopolitical arena, particularly when you are dealing with backward belligerents like Iran and North Korea, neither of whom appears to take him very seriously – a condition that more and more Americans are coming to appreciate.

And make no mistake, Iran’s acquiring nuclear weapons is the number one issue on the foreign agenda; you may recall that, during his campaign, Obama made it clear that Iran was not to be allowed to acquire nuclear weapons, a position from which he has never rhetorically wavered, but one which he seems unable to put into meaningful action. You may also recall that a year ago he informed us that he was seeking sanctions against Iran that would “cripple.” More recently, Hillary Clinton, while addressing AIPAC, noted  that the U.S. was seeking sanctions that would “bite.” In somewhat sarcastically commenting on this scaled down threat, Charles Krauthammer observed that next we would be talking about sanctions that would “pinch.” Frankly, I don’t believe that we shall come up with sanctions that even “tickle.” Meanwhile, while we have been engaging in all this bluster, Iran, a maniacal Mullahcracy, has been proceeding at full speed towards becoming nuclearized.

The Administration has been trying to build a meaningful coalition in support of such sanctions but has been quite unsuccessful. The Russians and Chinese have not gotten on board, notwithstanding their more recent statements indicating modest concessions. The Russian foreign minister, you may recall, previously expressed the opinion that sanctions don’t work (and in this position I concur; if you are not prepared to back up sanctions with meaningful force, then you are not to be taken seriously – AND WE ARE NOT TAKEN SERIOUSLY). Hell, Hillary could not even get Brazil to get on board. Let me tell you what’s going to happen – we are going to huff and puff, put some  sort of group together in support of sanctions, AND IRAN WILL BE NUCLEARIZED. In short, all of Obama’s charm will come to naught, and the world will be a more, not less, dangerous place, notwithstanding the efforts of our Charmer-in-Chief (to be continued).