RUTHFULLY YOURS

“For the history of our race, and each individual’s experience,are sown thick with evidences that a truth is not hard to kill, and that a lie well told is immortal.”Mark Twain“Advice to Youth,” 1882

An old joke goes: “How can you tell when a politician is lying?” The answer: “When his lips are moving.” While that may not be universally true, lying and deceit have infested our culture to an extent we no longer expect the truth. Lying is not new, but it has become pervasive.

White lies have always been around; they have always been acceptable and, in fact, are critical to a smoothly-functioning society. What characterizes such lies is that they are told to make someone else feel good, with little or no harm inflicted. For example, when my wife shows off a new outfit it is in my interest to express admiration. In turn, she will say things to inflate my ego, while (I am sure) crossing her fingers behind her back. Lying begins early. I recall occasions when, as a child, lying was preferable to the spanking I would get for a broken window or letting goats into the garden. The 2009 film “The Invention of Lying” depicted what the world would be like without lying – intentionally blunt and cruel, with no religion and no fiction.

In recent years, whenever I have had an opportunity to speak to an American audience concerned about anti-Israel activism and rising anti-Semitism, I point out that in these matters the U.S. is only a few years behind Britain and Europe. Look what is happening on the old continent, I say, and you can see your future. Reading Ruth Wisse’s important essay, “Anti-Semitism Goes to School,” is a reminder that the years change faster than my speeches—so much faster that I feel I can finally say, “Commiserations, America: you have caught up with us.”

It is fascinating how closely our situations resemble each other. Throughout my adult life I have spoken repeatedly on British campuses, and the patterns described by Wisse, though still shocking, are deeply familiar. I have been ushered out of back doors, had things thrown at me, and on one occasion—during an Israeli engagement in Gaza—asked not to come to a London campus because certain students were threatening violence against any visitor known to be pro-Israel.

American society is solidly free of the Israel-centered anti-Semitism that dominates its universities. Can that last?

At the end of her sweeping probe into the normalization of anti-Semitism on American campuses, Ruth Wisse lays down a double challenge. Can the United States, the world’s pre-eminent liberal democracy and the one most exceptionally hospitable to its Jewish minority, retain that exceptional status “by recognizing the threat [posed by contemporary anti-Semitism] and fighting it off?” For their part, can American Jews, by gathering their mettle, help this country’s universities “heal themselves of this most deadly pathology?”

In fact, the challenge is not just national but global. What happens in America will determine whether the Jewish people can maintain a center of power and influence in the Diaspora as well as in the sovereign state of Israel. At this critical juncture, as Wisse acknowledges, American Jewish political power, if it is to be effective, needs to be not just nursed but projected. The turmoil of recent years has been bruising: alongside the campus crisis and BDS, we have seen America’s bilateral relations with Israel collapse, in tandem with an assault of unprecedented scale against the “Israel Lobby,” a hydra-headed creature whose efforts to derail American foreign policy were menacingly portrayed in a 2007 book of that name by the political scientists John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt.

Relations between Germany and Israel are at a crossroads. Is it possible for the German government to continue to steadfastly support the country even as Jerusalem continues to refuse to allow the Palestinians to establish their own state?

The man who changed relations between Germany and Israel pauses to reflect as he sits in his living room in the western German town of Königswinter. “The situation is pretty hopeless,” he says. The comment sounds both disappointed and disenchanted.

His hair has receded and the wrinkles on his face are more pronounced, but he remains as sharp as ever. Rudolf Dressler, 74, is describing the current situation in Israel and expressing his deep concern.

He served as the German ambassador in Jerusalem for five years. In 2005, as Dressler’s term in Israel was already drawing to a close, he wrote an essay that included a sentence in which he expressed Germany’s unconditional solidarity with Israel more radically than anyone before him: “The secured existence of Israel lies in Germany’s national interest and is thus part of our reason of state.” It was this turn of phrase, coined by Dressler, that German Chancellor Angela Merkel incorporated into her speech before the Israeli parliament, the Knesset, three years later.

Dramatic Developments

Today, Dressler has become a sharp critic of current Israeli policies. He calls the development in Israel “dramatic.” Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has just won the elections based on a platform in which he clearly opposes the creation of a Palestinian state. Dressler is urging German politicians to make sure that this results in consequences. Germany has already waited too long, he says.

For obvious reasons, Germany has a unique relationship with Israel. Germany is historically linked to the Jewish state like no other country. In fact, Israel’s very existence would be unthinkable without the Holocaust. Israel was created as the new home for the Jewish people, a place where they could remain secure from persecution and pogroms after the Germans had murdered 6 million of them during World War II.

Shortly after the war, the fledgling country of West Germany faced one of its greatest challenges as it sought to forge close ties with Israel. In September 1952, when the Reparations Agreement was signed by then German Chancellor Konrad Adenauer and Israeli Foreign Minister Moshe Sharett, the two men didn’t even shake hands. Earlier, the delegations had been forbidden from speaking German — the language of the perpetrators — during negotiations, although many Jewish negotiators had German roots.

Old Certainties Crumble

Today, that initial coolness has warmed into a close relationship. In Israel, Merkel ranks among the most popular foreign politicians, and Berlin is all the rage among young Israelis traveling abroad these days. Likewise, in one-and-a-half weeks Israeli President Reuven Rivlin will travel to Berlin to celebrate 50 years of diplomatic ties.

Yet suddenly the old certainties are beginning to crumble. In all probability, Netanyahu will be reelected by the Knesset as Israeli prime minister, putting a man in power who during the elections openly spoke out against a Palestinian state. Although two-thirds of Israelis favor a two-state solution, the majority of the population rejects the notion of returning the land where settlements have been built on the West Bank.

This puts German politicians in a moral dilemma: How should they deal with a country that is constantly pursuing a regime of occupation and whose treatment of Palestinians in the occupied territories occasionally resembles apartheid? Germany is one of Israel’s most important arms suppliers. In recent years, the Germans exported highly advanced submarines to the Israelis that can be armed with nuclear warheads. This cost German taxpayers over €1 billion ($1.12 billion).

Of course, one of the reasons given for this move was that, in view of its history, Germany has an obligation to guarantee Israel’s security. An additional moral justification referred to Israel’s stalwart position for many decades as the only functioning democracy in the Middle East. But what if Israel decides to permanently revoke all civil rights to the Palestinians in the occupied territories — and this can no longer be glossed over with diplomatic clichés?

‘Clear, Unmistakable Language’

In Berlin a debate is unfolding over whether the old rules still apply in dealing with Israel, only this time it is not being led by right-wing firebrands or errant left-wingers, who have always viewed Israel as a satellite of American imperialism. Instead, these issues are being raised by outspoken friends of Israel. “If statements by Netanyahu cause the two-state solution to lose every shred of credibility, it will be difficult to find Palestinian negotiating partners who are willing to reach a peaceful solution,” warns Elmar Brok, the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee at the European Parliament in Brussels — and a member of Merkel’s conservative Christian Democratic Union (CDU). Removing the prospect of a two-state solution is “irresponsible — even from an Israeli perspective,” he says.

Other German politicians have similar opinions. “If the occupation status becomes permanent, we have to ask ourselves what this means in terms of our policy toward Israel,” says the chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee in the German parliament, Ruprecht Polenz of the CDU. What’s more, the deputy leader of the parliamentary group of the left-leaning Social Democratic Party (SPD), Rolf Mützenich, warns: “If the new Israeli government abandons the two-state solution, this would constitute a new situation that we would have to reevaluate.” He adds that the Israeli government must then realize “that the German government would have to assume a different basic stance.”

The Foreign Ministry in Berlin has a similar view. Officials there take statements made by Netanyahu during the election campaign “very seriously,” despite the fact that he revised them after the election. Still, what does this mean for German policies? For years now, Berlin has addressed Israel with a “clear, unmistakable language,” just as Dressler is urging, and openly criticized the ongoing construction of settlements — yet without any success. To achieve something would require a more pronounced distancing combined with pressure, deadlines and ultimatums. “We could limit trade with Israel, but also curb support in the form of arms deliveries, without affecting Israeli security,” argues Dressler.

Nick Gray is Director, Christian Middle East Watch, a British organisation dedicated to objective and factual discussion of Middle Eastern issues, especially of the Israel-Palestinian conflict. Nick, who is a regular contributor to The Commentator, blogs at cmewonline.com

The ridiculous and self-destructive Palestinian leadership continues to mourn the entirely just and legitimate re-establishment of Israel. But that’s no excuse for people in the West to indulge this nonsense, especially while carnage engulfs the MidEast

The state of Israel recently celebrated 67 years of independence as the world’s only Jewish state. On Friday, the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza mourned 67 years of so-called, “Israeli occupation”.

Although tension and conflict between the Jewish and Arab populations of the vague area once known as “Palestine” had already been going on throughout the period of British rule, the events of 1948 (67 years ago!) carry a poignancy and a particular significance for both sides.

After Jeb Bush’s ‘Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Week’

So there’s this story going around, surely a piece of fiction from a typically clueless Hollywood writer or something, that there’s a Republican candidate for president who is open to raising taxes, who urged the confirmation of Loretta Lynch as attorney general, and who is not just a supporter of but a prime mover behind the Common Core education mess while blasting opponents for pushing “conspiracy theories.”

This figment of the imagination also has spent years pushing vastly expanded immigration and what can be described only as mass amnesty for illegals. Not only that, but he has repeatedly said or strongly implied that those who don’t agree with him are not merely misguided, but heartless or nativist (and, yes, “un-American”).

When the Vatican joined the chorus and announced it would sign a treaty with the Palestinian political leadership to recognize the ‘State of Palestine’ it was yet another sign that people are so fixed on a desire for ‘peace’ that it makes them shortsighted, if not blind, to realities.

The peace camp is so myopically short on rationale, and the power of reason is so weak, that it doesn’t have the strength to pull the peace train out of the station, let alone allow it to reach its destination.

Allow me to highlight some simple facts that get in the way.

The Palestine envisioned by the Vatican is not the same Palestine envisioned by the Palestinian factions. Of course, the Vatican will say that this can only be the outcome of negotiations with Israel. If this is the case, why are they recognizing an unknown entity now and refusing to face the reality of Palestinian politics and ambitions?

Let me be blunt. The Vatican takes no consideration of the rejectionist anti-Semitism of both Fatah and Hamas or, if it has considered this malevolent and determined opposition to the existence of Israel, has chosen to ignore it.

Israel, I suggest, deserves an answer.

In our days at the immigration court, it always was a serious and somber moment when at the conclusion of a hearing we rendered a decision finding an illegal alien inadmissible or deportable, denying all applications for deportation relief, and issuing an order removing that alien back to their home country. The issuance of such an order would immediately be followed by an advisory letter to the alien explaining their rights to appeal and warning them of the criminal consequences of re-entering the country without proper authority. But now, that process is entering into the absurd.

Our former colleagues are now being forced to tell deportable aliens that the final deportation order they’re issuing isn’t actually an impediment to receiving the President’s grants of deferred action. Even though the alien’s violated our immigration laws (and dozens more [2] in some cases), they’re now being advised that they can receive work permits, a social security card, tax benefits, parole, travel documents, and, if the alien is from Central America, the opportunity to bring qualifying family members to the United States at taxpayer expense. And even they’re not eligible for deferred action, they know they should simply sit tight as DHS may issue more policy memoranda expanding eligibility for deferred action and additional benefits.

Jeb Bush tangled himself up recently when he tried to answer a dumb question on the intelligence failures about Iraq’s WMDs and their role in going to war with Saddam Hussein in 2003. I’m not interested in the media’s usual pointless chatter about the incident, or in the other Republican hopefuls who circled to plunge a spear in Jeb like the Greeks jabbing the dead Hector. More troubling is the continuing dumbing down of the context and circumstances that surrounded the decision to go to war.

Start first with the mood of the country in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks. After the shock and grief came the recriminations about the government’s failure to “connect the dots” and anticipate an attack that al Qaeda had telegraphed in word and bloody deed for nearly a decade. And that destruction had been wrought by a mere 19 terrorists, who armed only with box cutters had killed 3000 and injured 6000 Americans, and cost the economy $2 trillion, according to one estimate. No one wanted to find out what havoc terrorists armed with WMDs could wreak.

It is famously said the great 13th century philosopher Thomas Aquinas baptized Aristotle by reexamining faith’s relationship to reason; likewise it’s fair to say the “Liberation Theologists” ordained, elevated, beatified, and finally deified Karl Marx by asserting (Roman Catholic) Christianity can only be understood by interpreting faith through the suffering of the poor, their struggle, and their hopes. First described in A Theology of Liberation [1] by Peruvian Priest Gustavo Gutiérrez [2], liberation theology’s message that truth, justice — and thus the true vision of the Catholic Church — can only be seen through the eyes of the poor was immediately understood by the Left as a break in the Church’s historic sense of right and wrong, good and evil. It was also a perfect vehicle for persuading the increasingly secular western elites, bored with the burdens of traditional faith, that voting for a particular party was tantamount to praying; it even took care of the obligation to “aid the poor,” and freed them of “all that mumbo-jumbo superstition of which we smart young moderns have no need.” The doctrine spread quickly throughout Latin America and its open door to cafeteria religiosity quickly found friends in Asia, Africa — and, of course, Arab Palestine, where moral relativism is a constitutional necessity.