http://pjmedia.com/blog/6-ugly-signs-of-resurgent-worldwide-antisemitism/ 6 Ugly Signs of Resurgent Worldwide Antisemitism Posted By Robert Spencer [1]Hamas’s Al-Aqsa TV channel in late July [2] broadcast a Friday sermon in which an imam issued a chilling threat to Jews: “We will not leave a single one of you alive. Our doctrine in fighting you is that we will totally exterminate […]
People in the Middle East who put their trust in Barack Obama are suffering right now.
In January, President Obama likened fighters from the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria to a “jayvee team” in Lakers jerseys on the basketball court.
Eight months later, that squad of bloodthirsty maniacs is playing quite a game of pickup. Occupying swaths of territory stretching from Syria into Iraq, ISIS stands in control of a landmass unprecedented in the annals of terrorist organizations, makes millions of dollars a day selling oil on the black market, has beheaded men and sold women into slavery, and now threatens to kill 40,000 Yazidis — an Iraqi sect ISIS accuses of devil-worship.
It was the plight of the Yazidis, stranded on a mountain, that ultimately compelled the president to initiate a humanitarian airlift of food and water, which he announced from the White House Thursday night. The president has also authorized a limited number of air strikes on ISIS forces approaching the Yazidis. The mission, however, according to White House press secretary Josh Earnest, will be “very limited in scope.” This led Senator John McCain, in an exclusive interview with my Daily Beast colleague Josh Rogin, to ridicule the strikes as mere “pinpricks,” a reference to Obama’s insistence last year that the strikes he briefly supported in response to Assad’s chemical-weapons attacks would not be useless.
Asked seven years ago if the need to stave off potential genocide might convince him to change his mind about a total and precipitous withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, then-candidate Obama replied that it would not. “Well, look, if that’s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now — where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife — which we haven’t done,” Obama said.
This cynical avowal, I wrote at the time, was an indication of what might become the “Obama doctrine,” which I described thusly: “The United States will remain passive in the face of genocide.” Seven years later, I regret to say, my prediction stands up pretty well.
In Syria, some 150,000 to 200,000 people have died as a result of President BasharAssad’s war on his own people. “The photos show crimes the likes of which we have not seen since Auschwitz,” international war-crimes prosecutor David Crane said last month upon viewing images of tortured and murdered Syrians. Never mind the innocent lives lost: Assad is an enemy of the United States, Iran’s sole Arab ally, and, as a backer of Hezbollah and Hamas, a major source of instability in the region. Equipping and training the moderate rebels who were once poised to defeat him was categorically in the American interest. But Obama never seriously entertained the idea of overthrowing Assad. Far from it: The first three years of his presidency saw one slavish attempt at conciliation after another, until Assad began murdering Syrians en masse and Obama, fecklessly, announced that the president-for-life must “step aside.”
Nixon shattered the rule of law, but Bill Clinton subjected himself to national-security blackmail.
Forty years ago tomorrow, on August 9, 1974, Richard Nixon resigned the presidency in disgrace. He also set off a mini-industry in the media, which for decades has been obsessed with Watergate.
John Dean, a Nixon co-conspirator who moved to the left after his time in prison, wrote a book trashing the Bush years that he entitled “Worse than Watergate.” As for Nixon, a new HBO documentary about Nixon “takes a fresh look at the Nixon tapes to make the case that the already vilified 37th president was not as bad as you may think — he was worse,” ABC News Radio reported. Washington Post columnist Ruth Marcus concluded this week that four decades “after he slunk out of office, Richard M. Nixon retains the capacity to astonish and disgust.”
Nixon was in some ways sui generis in his contempt for the rule of law. But it is fascinating to see that while Nixon’s stock continues to shrink, the other president who drove the country toward impeachment continues to see his image burnished by historians. I’m talking about Bill Clinton, who is already deep into his new role as strategist for a planned Clinton-family return to the White House after a 16-year absence.
In his own way, Clinton was as reckless in office as Nixon was malevolent. Pre–Monica Lewinsky, he was engulfed in scandal after scandal ranging from Travel Office firings to the improper transfer to the White House of FBI files on leading Republicans. In January 1998, on the morning the Lewinsky scandal broke, President Clinton had to confess to Colonel Robert Patterson, his senior military aide, that he had lost the nuclear codes he was supposed to carry “and couldn’t recall how long the codes had been missing.” Patterson wrote in his memoir Dereliction of Duty that he was “appalled.” We now know that Clinton’s personal life frequently distracted him from his duties, and a new book by Daniel Halper of The Weekly Standard, Clinton, Inc.: The Audacious Rebuilding of a Political Machine, makes the case that President Clinton’s behavior also made him a target of international blackmail and threatened national security.
Whether he was agreeing to talk with the terminally insecure Lewinsky on a moment’s notice or was spending time to conduct extensive job searches for her, President Clinton did a great deal to keep Lewinsky quiet. Nonetheless, she ended up discussing her affair with eleven people. One of those was Linda Tripp, a Pentagon official who recorded Lewinsky’s accounts of the affair. But what if Tripp or someone else had taken those tapes to Chinese or Iranian agents instead of to Kenneth Starr, the special prosecutor?
Barack Obama deliberately set out to lose the war in Iraq, and he did. He defied the advice of his joint chiefs of staff to secure America’s formidable military presence and keep 20,000 troops in country, and left Iraq to its own devices and the tender mercies of Iran. In doing so, he betrayed every American and Iraqi who gave his life to create a free Iraq and keep it out of the clutches of the terrorists.
Iraq is now a war zone dominated by the terrorist forces of the Islamic State, whose rise Obama’s policies fostered. Both his secretaries of state praised the animal Bashar Assad as a “reformer” and a man of “peace,” helping him to thwart his domestic opposition. The Islamic State was born out of the Syrian chaos that ensued.
Far worse was Obama’s open support for America’s mortal enemy, the Muslim Brotherhood, spawner of al-Qaeda and Hamas. During the “Arab Spring,” Obama essentially put America’s weight behind the legitimization of this murderous organization that had been outlawed for 40 years for its assassinations and conspiracies against the Egyptian regime. Secretary of State Clinton gave totally unfounded assurances to the world that the Brotherhood was ready to become part of the democratic process and give up its 90-year holy war against infidels, Jews in particular but also — and explicitly — America. During the Brotherhood’s brief tenure as the government in Egypt Obama gave these genocidal zealots more than a billion dollars in American aid and F-16 fighter-bombers that could easily reach Israel’s major population centers, which for 60 years the Brotherhood had sworn to destroy.
By his feckless interventions in the Middle East, and his tacit support for the chief organization of Islam’s terror war against the West, Obama has set the Middle East on fire. All the violence in the crescent from Gaza to Iraq, including Hamas’s genocidal war against Israel, has been encouraged by Obama’s support for the Brotherhood and hostility toward the Jewish state.
Characteristic of this encouragement was his illegal intervention in Libya, which violated every principle that Obama and the Democrats invoked to attack President Bush and undermine America’s war against the Saddam regime and the terrorists in Iraq. Thanks to Obama, Libya is now in the hands of the terrorists and thousands of Libyans are fleeing to Tunisia and Egypt. Thanks to Obama, the Christian communities of Iraq, which date back to the time of Christ, are being slaughtered.
The global jihad is not nearly done with us, even if the president thinks he can wish it away.
Major General Harold Greene, who was murdered by a jihadist in Afghanistan Tuesday, is the highest-ranking American officer since the Vietnam War, 44 years ago, to be killed in combat. Or at least one hopes that he will be accorded the full honors of a soldier killed in combat. With the Obama administration and its compliant Pentagon brass, you can never be sure.
The two-star general was killed, and 15 fellow allied soldiers wounded, not on the battlefield but in the seemingly secure confines of a military base — in this instance, a training school outside Kabul. The shooting spree was carried out not by honorable combatants wearing an enemy uniform but by a stealth terrorist dressed as a member of the allied force whose treachery enabled him to kill and maim.
That makes it eerily similar, although considerably less bloody, than the Fort Hood massacre. In that 2009 attack, 13 American soldiers were murdered, and dozens wounded. The assassin was Nidal Hasan, who was formally a commissioned U.S. Army officer, but in reality a stealth terrorist — the “Soldier of Allah” described on the business cards he carried inside his soldier-of-America camouflage.
At the moment they were killed and wounded, the Americans in Fort Hood were being processed for imminent deployment to Afghanistan. They were headed to fight in the same war in which General Greene was killed by our jihadist enemies — the same “Muslim brothers” Hasan admitted mass-murdering our troops to protect.
Hasan, who screamed “Allahu Akbar!” as he mowed our troops down, acted while in communication with, and under the influence of, Anwar al-Awlaki, a notorious al-Qaeda operative. By 2009, Awlaki was known to have held furtive meetings with two of the principal suicide-hijackers in the days before the 9/11 attacks. He was adept at recruiting and inciting anti-American jihadists, like Hasan. Indeed, he is believed to have inspired other anti-American terror attacks and attempts.
That is why the commander-in-chief, relying on the law of war, authorized Awlaki’s killing by a drone strike in Yemen. Yet the same commander-in-chief and his Pentagon yes-men have adamantly refused to categorize the Fort Hood shootings as related to war and armed combat.
According to the July 30, 2014 Rasmussen Reports , 59% of likely US voters believe that there is a global conflict between the Muslim World and Western civilization, only 17% disagree and 24% are undecided. Likely voters also believe that the “Arab Spring” does not bode well for the US.
The US posture of deterrence played a key role in bolstering Western civilization in face of intensifying threats, checking global violence and instability, bolstering the confidence of US allies, and constraining the maneuverability of rogue regimes.
However, the current perception of the US posture of deterrence among US Arab allies is reflected by a July 27, 2014 OpEd in the leading Saudi daily, A-Sharq al-Awsat, which is one of the most influential Arab newspapers, owned by the Saudi royal family: “…. Secretary John Kerry is representing a weak US administration…. He visits Baghdad to represent an administration that lacks decision-making. He shuttles between Tel Aviv and Cairo as a mediator with no real clout…. Barack Obama’s weak foreign policy is weighing on the deteriorating situation across the world…. Washington’s position on Egypt has changed over the course of the past three years in a manner which demonstrates America’s confused vision and weak foreign policy…. Obama did not even bother to issue a statement regarding the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS) forcing Mosul’s Christians to flee. Obama’s increasingly isolationist policy is damaging Kerry’s credibility….”
World attention has riveted on as many as 40,000 Yazidis (Yezidis), half of whom may be children, trapped on Mount Sinjar, northwestern Iraq, without water or food, after being targeted by the latest jihad rampages of the “Islamic State” (ISIL) butchers. The Yazidis are an indigenous, ancient, pre-Islamic non-Muslim religious minority whose syncretic beliefs derive, in part, from Zoroastrianism.
Reports indicate that as per President Obama’s address last (Thursday, 8/7/14) evening, today (Friday 8/8/14), the U.S. has begun both humanitarian air-drops to those refugees stranded on Mount Sinjar, and bombing runs against ISIL positions outside Erbil, Kurdistan.
Sadly, ISIL’s current bloody attacks on the Yazidis reflect a continuum of religiously-inspired, chronic Islamic oppression of this minority group, interspersed with paroxysms of violence no less brutal than what is now taking place.
Sir Austen Henry Layard (1817-1894) was a British polymath—archaeologist, author, politician, and diplomat—perhaps best known for his the excavations in northern Mesopotamia, contemporary Iraq.
Layard recorded the following, based upon first hand observations, and historical assessments, about the chronic plight of the Yazidis (Yezidis) under Islamic domination in his 1849, Nineveh and Its Remains. His focus, appropriately, given the time frame, was upon the depredations against the Yazidis during the allegedly “tolerant” Ottoman Muslim era: massacre, pillage, and deportation and enslavement of their male and female children, for “service” in the vast Ottoman slave institutions, including harem slavery.
They [the Yazidis] have the choice between conversion and the sword, and its is unlawful even to take tribute [jizya, per Koran 9:29, the deliberately debasing poll-tax, and related regulations imposed upon non-Muslim Christians, Jews, and Zoroastrians subjugated by jihad] from them. The Yezidis, not being looked upon as “Masters of a Book,” [i.e., scriptures, “acknowledged,” at least in part, by Islam] have been exposed for centuries to the persecution of the Mohammedans. The harems of the south of Turkey have been recruited from them. Yearly expeditions have been made by the governors of provinces into their districts; and whilst the men and women were slaughtered without mercy, the children of both sexes were carried off, and exposed for sale in the principal towns. These annual hunts were one of the sources of revenue…and its was the custom of the Pashas of Baghdad and Mosul, to let loose the irregular troops upon the ill-fated Yezidis, as an easy method of satisfying their demands for arrears of pay.
You have to be made of stone or be a Clinton (think Rwanda) not to be outraged and moved by the scene of thousands of children from Central America being held in terrible conditions with uncertain futures. Our President, whose hemoglobin is higher than his approval ratings, did not deign to visit them or comment on their need for attention, medical screening, inoculations , treatment or ultimate destiny. Instead, he is planning some form of diktat on blanket amnesty while Congress is in recess.
And, these children are his human shields- and he will shamelessly use their plight to promote his agenda on immigration while putting children last….rsk
By any historical standard, Israel’s air attacks were a model of restraint.
Condemnation of Israel for its conduct of Operation Protective Edge in Gaza continues unabated. The chief accusation, heard time and again, is that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) have either been cavalier about civilian casualties or are intentionally inflicting them. Israel and its defenders, for their part, have been at pains to point out the great lengths the IDF has gone to avoid injuring civilians, while at the same time noting the innumerable ways in which Hamas has violated the laws of war.
The debate over these matters has been almost as intense as the fighting itself. All too often, historical and moral perspective have been lost in the rhetorical smoke. No nation can survive with hundreds of rockets raining on its cities day after day while its borders are simultaneously penetrated by armed fighters seeking to spirit out hostages via underground tunnels. Once again, Israel has found itself waging a war for its survival. In such a war, the question becomes: What is forbidden and what is permitted?
As is well known but bears restating, the campaign Israel has been conducting to suppress Hamas rocket fire and destroy its tunnel network employs precision guided munitions. The attacks from land, air, and sea are designed to destroy Hamas’s command and control facilities and those structures in or from which it has been manufacturing, storing, or firing its huge arsenal of rockets. Before the IDF attacks any buildings where civilians are known to be living or congregating, it issues numerous alerts by dropping leaflets, making telephone calls and sending text messages, and firing warning shots.
In a conflict in which its adversary employs innocent women and children as human shields and fires offensive weapons from or near hospitals, schools, and U.N. shelters, Israel’s effort to reduce civilian casualties has clearly not succeeded in every case. But the effort itself, if not unique in the annals of warfare, is certainly far from the norm. Notably, it stands in the starkest possible contrast to the way Great Britain and the United States conducted their own war for survival.
The Germans in World War II may have initiated the carpet bombing of civilian centers, but it did not take long for the Allies to respond in kind. Days after the German bombing of Rotterdam, Winston Churchill’s war cabinet settled on the initiation of “unrestricted air warfare,” openly casting aside concern for civilian life so long as military objectives would be realized. What followed over the next years, as is well known, was the destruction of more than half of Germany’s urban centers.
“Whenever Israel does anything to defend itself, it is accused of acting disproportionately or committing war crimes. That there is a new form of anti-Semitism at work here is unquestionable” • An interview with my father, Norman Podhoretz.
Ruthie Blum
Since the 1980 U.S. presidential election, Norman Podhoretz has been called — along with the late Irving Kristol — one of the two “founding fathers of neoconservatism.” A member of the Democratic Party disillusioned with what he and a growing group of other liberals viewed as a radical shift away from the values they held dear, Podhoretz supported Republican candidate Ronald Reagan.
A mere four years earlier, he had voted for Jimmy Carter — who ran against incumbent Gerald Ford — on the grounds that “when in doubt, go for the Democrat; he will at least be better for Israel, and probably for America.”
Podhoretz’s complete about-face on this score was a gradual process, however, that began during the Vietnam War. Though initially opposed to it, he became increasingly disgusted by the anti-war movement. When fellow members of the intellectual Left began to spew vitriol against America — even likening it to Nazi Germany — Podhoretz was not on board, to put it mildly.
The editor-in-chief of Commentary magazine between 1960 and 1995, and the author of hundreds of controversial articles and 12 books (among them “World War IV: The Long Struggle against Islamofascism”), Podhoretz was awarded the 2004 Medal of Freedom by George W. Bush, and the Guardian of Zion award by the Ingeborg Rennert Center for Jerusalem Studies at Bar-Ilan University in 2007.
He is married to author and social critic Midge Decter, whose own political journey from Left to Right coincided and was enmeshed with his. Separately and together, they have been vilified for their politics and vindicated by them.
They also happen to be my parents. And in spite of having been accused decades ago by ideological foes of “dual loyalty” to the U.S. and Israel, when I made aliyah in 1977, my father, now 84, was not happy about it.
”You are the only person I know with downward mobility,” he quipped at the time.
Since then, he has made his peace with my move, often joking that my columns in Israel Hayom “are liable to turn me into the kind of Zionist everyone has accused me of being.”
During an interview with him at his home in New York in June — a few weeks before the outbreak of Operation Protective Edge — Podhoretz summarized his complex worldview in a nutshell: “When in doubt, go for the Republican; he will at least be better for Israel — and certainly for America.”
