RUTHFULLY YOURS

The campaign against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will focus on his alleged “isolation” of Israel from the rest of the “international community” through his diplomatic policies. To be sure, Netanyahu has negotiated extensively about a Palestinian state with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and reportedly made significant concessions to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

More importantly, it is simply not the case that Israel finds itself isolated, or that any diplomatic consequences can be attributable to the composition of the government. Rather, the specter of “isolation” is a demagogic tool wielded for political purposes. As such, it is extremely dangerous, because such things can become self-fulfilling prophecies: If you say nobody likes you often enough, you may notice you have fewer friends.

Perhaps the aspect of isolation most feared by Israelis is economic. Yet here there is simply no evidence for any isolation. Israel’s trade has risen steadily with all its major partners, even those most critical of it, like Europe. Moreover, Netanyahu has opened new doors to opportunities in India and elsewhere in Asia. Just like his ideological tension with European leaders has not impeded trade, one should not credit his compatibility with the nationalist leadership of India for these new frontiers. Rather, business has a life of its own that — except in the most extreme cases — is separate from diplomacy.

Then there is the issue of European parliaments passing nonbinding suggestions to recognize a Palestinian state. The Left can hardly blame the government for these, when some of the leading figures on the left have been lobbying European capitals to pass such measures. Indeed, major Labor Party figures — including former attorney-generals, speakers of parliament, and so forth — have been at the forefront of the Palestinian recognition campaign. They have not been drummed out of the party, or otherwise significantly rebuked. So if anything, it is not Netanyahu but his critics who should shoulder the blame for this (rather insignificant) diplomatic disturbance.

Yesterday I explained how Israel’s Jewish nation-state bill is unremarkable compared to many European constitutions with similar, and stronger, national homeland provisions. The proposed measure must also be understood in the context of Israel’s diplomatic situation. Israel’s biggest diplomatic issue is the status of Jerusalem and the West Bank, and international pressure to create a new Arab state there and in Gaza. The major argument by proponents of territorial withdrawal (including President Obama and Sec. Kerry) is that despite the serious security risks, Israel must retreat in order to maintain a “Jewish state.” Indeed, even foreign leaders, like President Obama and Secretary Kerry have both justified their pressure on Israel by invoking the preservation of the Israel’s Jewish identity.

Thus supporters of Israel leaving the West Bank believe having a Jewish state is worth security risks, surrendering historical homeland and religious sites, and expelling over 100,000 Jews. That suggests a Jewish state is not merely a legitimate thing, but one that is worth a great deal. Yet the same voices calling for Israel to undertake dangerous diplomatic concessions in the name of preserving the state’s Jewish identity balk at legislation declaring that the state in fact is what they claim they want it to remain.

Yet if being a “Jewish state” cannot even justify democratic legislation about holiday and other public symbols, it is not clear what the big deal is. Going by the current reactions, the only value in a “Jewish” state is that it can expel Jews from their homes with little criticism. (Given the general indifference when other nations expel Jews, this also seems like a thin benefit.)

The “torture” report released Tuesday by California Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s Senate Select Committee on Intelligence is the latest attempt to prove that the George W. Bush administration’s “enhanced interrogation techniques” used on a small number of terrorist prisoners amounted to torture and that the CIA lied to congress about them. It is a political condemnation of CIA conduct meant to erect another barrier to effective interrogation of terrorists, and it is wrong in its statement of the law.

The Democrats — at least those who were among the congressional leadership, including the leaders of the House and Senate Intelligence committees in the years immediately after Sept. 11, 2001 — were all knowledgeable of the “enhanced interrogation techniques” used by the CIA to interrogate terrorist prisoners. Some involved rough handling — slaps to the face, bodies thrown against a wall, sleep deprivation — and some very few interrogations — notably of Khalid Sheik Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah — involved waterboarding. Since then, the Democrats have alternately denied that they knew what was done and sought to condemn the use of the “EITs” as torture.

On Tuesday, two actions sought to propel that false narrative. First was a New York Times op-ed by ACLU executive director Anthony Romero suggesting that President Obama pardon President George W. Bush, former Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others ” because it may be the only way to establish, once and for all, that torture is illegal.” The second was the release of the 500-page report authored by Mrs. Feinstein’s Democratic members and staff after an investigation that began in 2009. Both are wrong because according to a CIA inspector general report and Justice Department legal opinions at the time the EITs they employed — even waterboarding — weren’t torture under U.S. law.

Any condemnation of the CIA’s interrogation of terrorist detainees cannot be justified if it was lawful and if it resulted in gathering of intelligence that proved useful in capturing or killing active terrorists. Of the Feinstein report’s 20 conclusions only the first three are relevant to those questions. They state that the enhanced interrogation techniques were ineffective in acquiring intelligence, that the CIA’s justification for using them rested on inaccurate claims of effectiveness and that the CIA’s interrogations of detainees were “brutal and far worse than the CIA represented to policymakers and others.”

Sixty-six years ago was the high water mark of global disapproval of xenophobia, and racial and religious discrimination. On December 10, 1948, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and then gave Eleanor Roosevelt a standing ovation for her leading role. Today, this statement of principle would never pass.

Racial and religious discrimination is the trademark of the U.N. itself.

Let’s look back at the year 2014.

At least another 75,000 people were butchered in Syria. There were violent crackdowns in Hong Kong, bloody takeovers in Ukraine, subjugation of women in Saudi Arabia, brutal lawlessness in Yemen, Libya, Nigeria, Mexico – and so on.

But at the United Nations, 2014 wraps up with the adoption of twenty times more resolutions by the General Assembly condemning the state of Israel for violating human rights than any other nation on earth.

There is not one General Assembly resolution worried about human rights in China or Russia or Saudi Arabia or Yemen or Libya or Nigeria or Mexico – and so forth.

The General Assembly will even adopt one resolution critical of Syria but two resolutions demanding Israel immediately return the Golan Heights to Syria – the place where lucky Syrians and UN peacekeepers dash to Israel for protection.

The demonization of Israel, and the inequality of the self-determination of the Jewish people, by way of the United Nations have one painfully obvious purpose: the end of the Jewish state. Eleanor Roosevelt would have called it a gross violation of the very spirit of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

Dear Senators Feinstein, Reid and all House and Senate Democrats:

In the spirit of open and transparent government, you have done all of us a service releasing the CIA report. The things that are open and transparent are what our governing body wishes us to know. Sometimes we have to look at the implications of what is being said and not the words themselves. I think that this is such an occasion.

One thing that is clear is that self-defense is a no-no even when your enemy is aggressive, brutal and completely dedicated to its cause, particularly in killing us. Not only does this administration apply it to the US, it applies it to friendly countries. Take this summer’s war between Israel and Gaza. The Administration, including the President, said that Israel has a right to defend itself. However, if it practices that right on the enemy, it is a crime. Using Iron Dome to shoot down Hamas missiles was fine. To hit their launching pads near apartment, schools and UN facilities was a crime against humanity. On the other hand, Hamas aggression where they launched said missiles was ignored as was Hamas’s use of human shields.

Since we have gone back eight years to condemn American (CIA) actions against people who killed 3,000 Americans and aimed to kill more, I think we should go further back to condemn American action of self-defense.

Vietnam is a rallying cry for the Liberal-Progressive wing of America. In Vietnam, we left in total disgrace. We left the people of Vietnam and Cambodia at the non-mercy of North Vietnam Communists and Pol Pot. It was OK that millions were slaughtered because it wasn’t done by Americans. It was done by Communists. Do notice the non-mention of Pol Pot, Gen. Giap, Stalin, Mao, Castro and Che Guevara amongst others by Progressives except when they want to praise them.

It is an absolute fact. The number of Islamic terrorists are growing rapidly as are their violent actions killing more and more non Muslims.

We must stop thinking there is nothing one person can do. There are many options on how an individual can get involved in counteracting terrorists..

Below are a few ideas how you can help defend our freedom. A small amount of assistance from a lot of people can make a big difference.

The very important first step is a firm commitment to learn, with an open mind, about Islam and the terrorists. Clearly, worldwide, the vast majority of terrorists are Muslims who want Islam to take over the world and force everyone to become Muslim. Be prepared to learn that frequently there is a vast difference between what they say and what they actually do.

I heartily recommend that you do not rely on the major media nor politicians for correct information. At best, for the most part, they are ill informed. There are many knowledgeable sources, such as Creepingsharia.wordpress.com, Investigativeproject.org, Thereligonofpeace.com, Jihadwatch.org, Campuswatch.org, UnitedWest.com and Islamicwatch.org that you can easily locate on the internet and subscribe to at no cost.

The Quran, the Muslim’s holy book may be the most controversial book in the world. Some see it as a way to peace. Others see it as a violent mandate for worldwide Islamic supremacy. By reading the Quran, you’ll better understand the Islamic people and the Islamic terrorists and what motivates them. The Quran is available in books and on the internet. The Complete Infidel’s Guide to the Quran by Robert Spencer may be a good start as is “Jihad For Dummies.” These books will help you speak with more knowledge.

A valuable action you can take as an individual is to write or call your representatives and the media with your opinion or a question. Have patience. Continuously expressing your opinions have an impact particularly when many individuals do the same.

http://www.latinpost.com/articles/26425/20141124/saudi-national-reportedly-crashes-car-containing-explosives-army-post-fort.htm
Saudi National Reportedly Crashes Car Into US Army Post Fort Sam Houston in San Antonio, Texas By Rodrigo Ugarte

A driver who rammed his car into the gates of U.S. Army post Fort Sam Houston in Texas is in custody after the ordeal on Sunday. Police have not provided much information about the situation or the suspect, but the military base, which had been placed under lockdown, has returned to normal operations.

The suspect has been identified as a male Saudi national, according to KCEN TV. Authorities have not identified the man, but he is in custody. Initial reports said the car contained explosives but the Associated Press reported Monday morning the car did not contain any explosive devices.

The AP also reports the suspect is a college student but did not provide his nationality.
The base went into lockdown at around 5:30 p.m. Sunday night, according to the New York Daily News, and was under lockdown for four hours as military police investigated. The Bexar County Sheriff’s Office knew of the lockdown but did not deploy any deputies to the scene.

Cars were not allowed to leave or enter the base as the investigation continued, reported the San Antonio Express-News.

The director of public affairs for Joint Base San Antonio, Todd White, denied the rumors that an active shooter was on the base.

Nothing illegal transpired when the grand jury voted not to indict the policeman who put Eric Garner in a chokehold. People may not have liked that decision but no one has accused the prosecutor of not following the proper guidelines of the law or the jury of having been corrupted. There are remedies for dissatisfaction with this conclusion and they have already started to go into effect. The federal govt has begun preliminary investigations into the possibility of a Civil Rights lawsuit and the family of Mr. Garner will undoubtedly initiate a civil suit against the city for wrongful death. A prestigious law school should have used this event as an important lesson in how our legal system works and how individual rights are balanced against other forces and considerations. Instead, Columbia Law School has deemed this event a trauma for its students and has decided to postpone final exams for those students too impaired to take them. By this reasoning, every time a lawyer loses a case, he should be excused from his immediate work load. The only people who can properly be considered traumatized by Garner’s death are members of his immediate family; students of all colors who are displeased should still be held to their academic responsibilities or the definition of trauma gets diluted down to sheer meaningless-ness.

Similarly, the accusation of gang rape at the University of Virginia that precipitated the article by Rolling Stone and its subsequent retraction by the magazine has led to notes written by 300 students who have posed on Facebook bearing a sign saying “I Stand With Survivors.” Time was when a survivor was a word reserved for people who had remained alive after being prisoners of war or inmates in concentration camps during World War II. These people went through years of starvation, torture and indescribable debasement and looked liked skeletons when they were liberated. Now the word is used by students to describe someone who had a sexual assault – an umbrella term on campus not restricted to rape, but including any unwanted sexual activity including kissing, groping, exhibitionism or voyeurism. Does the term survivor as understood in its original context really apply to this? If you got drunk of your own volition and slept with someone who took advantage of your inebriation, you were irresponsible, not a survivor. If you were physically attacked by someone who raped you, you were a victim of a crime that should be reported to the police. Most people don’t want to brand themselves as victims in perpetuity but neither should they be considered survivors for having had one terrible experience.

Racism is the belief that innate differences among different races determine individual outcomes. As a belief, it has been discredited. As practice it violates an individual’s civil rights. Like prejudice, its persistence reflects society’s moral turpitude.

Prejudice can be defined as preconceived opinions that are not based on reason or experience. It cannot be corrected through legislative actions. Prejudice is cultural and usually ingrained. It comes in many flavors. There are xenophobes, misogynists, anti-Semites and racists, among others. Such feelings are primarily a function of ignorance, but they also reflect a culture that lacks empathy and mutual respect. As a society, we need greater emphasis on family values. We need parents, teachers and others in authority to set exemplary examples. The banning of discrimination and the prosecuting of racists will not, unfortunately, eliminate prejudice.

For political purposes and personal gain, public figures and the media have inflamed the anger following the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson and the alleged choke-hold death of Eric Garner on Staten Island. The two cases were similar in that both involved black men killed by white cops. Both accused men resisted arrest, a violation of the rule of law. They were alike in that Grand Jury’s found no evidence to indict either policeman. But the differences are marked. A video shows what appears to be an unnecessary rough (and deadly) take-down of Mr. Garner. Mr. Brown apparently attacked the arresting officer, while Mr. Garner resisted attempts to be handcuffed, even though he had been arrested for the same misdemeanor before. (The police cannot determine which laws to enforce, no matter how minor the infractions may seem.)

While laws banning discrimination have been enacted, there is no question that prejudice and racism persist; though less overtly than fifty years ago. Tolerance should be encouraged, but it cannot be mandated. It must be learned, as must honor and fairness. Respect must be earned. All should be aspects of our cultural makeup. These are values we inherit from our parents, and should be integral parts of our school’s curriculum.

The New York Times, the paper that earned the dubious distinction of being the recipient of the “Most Dishonest Reporting” award for 2013 is at it again. This time, The Gray Lady featured an op-ed piece by the notorious anti-Semite Max Blumenthal, providing this provocateur with a mainstream platform to express his odious views.

True to form, Blumenthal, the darling of radical extremists, conflates, distorts and simply makes things up. But I’m not here to analyze Blumenthal’s arrant nonsense. Others have already done a good job of that. What I wish to highlight is the depths to which the New York Times has sunk.

To be sure, the New York Times has in the past given a broad range of anti-Israel types a platform to express their opinions in the op-ed section, far more than those expressing positive views of Israel. But Blumenthal’s pernicious views veer uncomfortably close to old fashion anti-Semitism and this time, the New York Times exceeded the bounds of decency and fair play and has partnered with those who openly express Jew-hatred.

An analysis of Blumenthal’s history reveals the following disturbing facts;

•Blumenthal was disinvited from a scheduled speaking engagement by the German “Die Linke” (The Left) party due to his anti-Semitic (not to mention anti-Israel) views.

•Blumenthal’s antics earned him a lifetime ban from the German parliament.

•The Simon Wiesenthal Center has labeled Blumenthal an anti-Semite and his comments earned him a spot in the Simon Wiesenthal Center’s “Top 10” list of anti-Semitic slurs.