RUTHFULLY YOURS

The media portray Israel as an all-white colonialist state. What’s the real story?
Mainstream-media outlets in the West love to run photographs of Palestinians, typically looking sympathetic in the ruins of bombed-out buildings. On the rare occasions when editors include photos of Israelis, the images bear a striking similarity to one another: All the people in them are white.

In reality, Israelis — including thousands of soldiers in the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) — are not uniformly white or even Jewish. Consider the commander of the Golani Brigade, one of the country’s elite infantry units, currently fighting in Gaza as part of Operation Protective Edge. Colonel Rasan Alian is an Arab Druse who has served in the IDF for over two decades. Recently wounded in the eye and hospitalized, he returned to the front lines as quickly as he could to lead his men. In Alian’s own words, quoted in the Israeli press, “I want to go back to Gaza, and get to as many terrorists as possible.”

Do you find it intriguing that an Arab abhors Hamas and has spent 20 years of his life defending the Jewish state? Well, CNN doesn’t. Its investigative journalists prefer to malign Israelis as “scum.” Apparently Rasan Alian just isn’t a compelling story.

Or what about Chief Warrant Officer Baynesian Kasahun and Staff Sergeant Moshe Malko, two of the Israeli soldiers tragically killed in combat? They are both black. In fact, peruse the entire list of those who have given their lives to stop Hamas’s reign of terror. There is a lot of diversity there.

From all the photos in the New York Times over the past decade, you would never know that more than 125,000 Ethiopian Jews live in Israel, and many of them have served in the IDF. Or that, in addition to the Druse, large numbers of Bedouins volunteer to join the Israeli army, even though they are exempt from conscription. Or that Israel and the IDF boast Jews of Middle Eastern descent.

Instead, much of the Western media carefully “whitewashes” images from Israel to give the impression that Israelis are all of European heritage. Why? Because whitewashing fits the post-colonial narrative the Left applies to Israel. In that mindset, the Jewish state is the “colonizer/occupier,” and the Palestinians living in Gaza and the West Bank are the “natives.” If IDF soldiers have the same skin tone as British imperialists or Christopher Columbus, the template is that much easier to apply.

Why does Israel battle Hamas? Visualize San Diego in the hands of Mexican revanchists.

To understand why Israel fights in the Gaza Strip, try this thought experiment:

Imagine that Mexicans loudly and violently demand that America vacate the territory that Mexico previously controlled in the U.S. southwest. To make their case, Mexican revanchists brutally attack American diplomatic posts, assassinate U.S. officials, and even kidnap and kill American athletes at the summer Olympics. Despite such bloodshed, these Mexicans gain supporters among anti-American governments and elites worldwide.

Caving into this pressure, America gives the Mexicans San Diego. Dubbed “land for peace,” Washington’s concession would let Mexicans manage that city and show how they might govern if granted a “right of return” on even larger, previously Mexican lands.

While most Americans leave San Diego quietly, the U.S. military ejects holdouts from their property and removes them just before the Mexicans move in.

San Diego’s Mexican citizens soon reject the comparatively tame Institutional Revolutionary Party and elect leaders from the radical Zapatista Army of National Liberation. As its recent communiqué declares, “The anti-capitalist struggle below and to the left continues.”

In its propaganda war against Israel, Hamas will do whatever it takes.

Sound bites are usually meant to obfuscate as much as clarify. Rarely is one so incisive as the line uttered by Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu the other day about the difference between Israel and Hamas: “We’re using missile defense to protect our civilians, and they’re using their civilians to protect their missiles.”

This is the ground truth of the latest Gaza War that gets obscured by the relentlessly repeated stark disparity in casualties between the Gazans, hundreds of whom have died in the conflict, and the Israelis.

Each civilian death in Gaza is a tragedy, but who is ultimately responsible? The moral calculus here is simple. Hamas precipitated the war and persisted in waging it even when Israel was willing to accept an Egyptian offer of a cease-fire. Hamas hides its rockets in schools and places its command bunkers under hospitals. It wants war, and it wants civilian casualties.

Joseph Stalin infamously said that one death is a tragedy, a million is a statistic. Hamas is happy with either a tragedy (the four kids killed on the beach by Israeli shells last week) or a statistic (the climbing civilian toll), so long as it is death and so long as it can be used in the propaganda war against Israel.

This isn’t hard to understand. Yet even supporters of Israel give in to the twisted logic that the Gaza conflict is somehow an indictment of the Jewish state. Former secretary of state Madeleine Albright said on CNN “that this is hurting Israel’s moral authority.” Which is exactly the conclusion Hamas wants “the international community” to draw from its depraved indifference to the safety of Gazans.

The world is aflame and our leader is on the 14th green.

The president’s demeanor is worrying a lot of people. From the immigration crisis on the Mexican border to the Islamic State rising in Mesopotamia, Barack Obama seems totally detached. When he does interrupt his endless rounds of golf, fundraising, and photo ops, it’s for some affectless, mechanical, almost forced public statement.

Regarding Ukraine, his detachment — the rote, impassive voice — borders on dissociation. His U.N. ambassador, Samantha Power, delivers an impassioned denunciation of Russia. Obama cautions that we not “get out ahead of the facts,” as if the facts of this case — Vladimir Putin’s proxies’ shooting down a civilian airliner — are in doubt.

The preferred explanation for the president’s detachment is psychological. He’s checked out. Given up. Let down and disappointed by the world, he is in withdrawal.

Perhaps. But I’d propose an alternate theory that gives him more credit: Obama’s passivity stems from an idea. When Obama says Putin has placed himself on the wrong side of history in Ukraine, he actually believes it. He disdains realpolitik because he believes that, in the end, such primitive 19th-century notions as conquest are self-defeating. History sees to their defeat.

“The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice” is one of Obama’s favorite sayings. Ultimately, injustice and aggression don’t pay. The Soviets saw their 20th-century empire dissolve. More proximally, U.S. gains in Iraq and Afghanistan were, in time, liquidated. Ozymandias lies forever buried and forgotten in desert sands.

Remember when, at the beginning of the Ukraine crisis, Obama tried to construct for Putin “an off-ramp” from Crimea? Absurd as this idea was, I think Obama was sincere. He actually imagined that he’d be saving Putin from himself, that Crimea could only redound against Russia in the long run.

If you really believe this, then there is no need for forceful, potentially risky U.S. counteractions. Which explains everything since: Obama’s pinprick sanctions; his failure to rally a craven Europe; his refusal to supply Ukraine with the weapons it has been begging for.

“It’s Virtually Impossible to Be a Successful Modern President” declares the headline of a blog post by the Washington Post’s Chris Cillizza. The post has drawn a great deal of ridicule, but to our mind most of the critics fail to appreciate just how feeble an effort it is. Our aim is to correct that.

Cillizza’s argument is based on four observations: First, the presidency is a difficult job. Second, the “bully pulpit” isn’t what it used to be. Third, the electorate and elected officials have become more ideologically polarized. Fourth, the “mainstream media” are no longer a coherent and powerful entity, in part because of the rise of social media.

These utterly banal observations add up to a causal claim: that because of the last three factors, it has become impossible for a president to succeed. Well, no, not impossible, he admits at the very end, and the headline does include the weasel word virtually. “But failure is far, far more likely. Ask Barack Obama. Or George W. Bush.”

One suspects if asked, either Obama or Bush would dispute the premise that he is a failure. But rather than argue over specific cases, let’s ask Cillizza to define his terms. What constitutes a failed presidency? Here’s his answer: “A president who [sic] a majority of the country disapproves of and a country even more split along ideological lines on, well, everything.”

The second component of this definition begs the question. Cillizza claims ideological polarization causes presidential failure, which he defines in part as ideological polarization. So ideological polarization causes ideological polarization. At the end of the post, Cillizza tries to isolate disapproval from polarization and comes up with this:

I was talking to a Democratic pollster recently about President Obama’s weak job approval ratings and what it might mean for Democrats on the ballot this fall. I asked how Obama could move his numbers up and what a “good place” for him might look like. The pollster responded that the political world needed to change its definition of what being a popular president entails in this day and age. His point was that if Obama could somehow crawl back to 50 percent approval before November, that would be a huge success. Obama’s ceiling–almost no matter what he said or did–was around 52 or 53 percent, the pollster argued.

Of course that goes both ways: A polarized electorate means that a president’s approval rating has a floor (in Obama’s case a bit below 40%) as well as a ceiling. But in any case, if contemporaneous approval ratings were the measure of presidential success, Truman would be considered a failure and Harding would be on Mount Rushmore.

The supposedly independent agency harassed the administration’s political opponents and saved its health-care law.

One of the big questions out of the IRS targeting scandal is this: How can an agency that engaged in such political misconduct be trusted to implement ObamaCare? This week’s Halbig v. Burwell ruling reminded us of the answer. It can’t.

The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in Halbig that the administration had illegally provided ObamaCare subsidies in 36 insurance exchanges run by the federal government. Yet it wasn’t the “administration” as a whole that issued the lawless subsidy gift. It was the administration acting through its new, favorite enforcer: the IRS.

And it was entirely political. Democrats needed those subsidies. The party had assumed that dangling subsidies before the states would induce them to set up exchanges. When dozens instead refused, the White House was faced with the prospect that citizens in 36 states—two-thirds of the country—would be exposed to the full cost of ObamaCare’s overpriced insurance. The backlash would have been horrific, potentially forcing Democrats to reopen the law, or even costing President Obama re-election.

The White House viewed it as imperative, therefore, that IRS bureaucrats ignore the law’s text and come up with a politically helpful rule. The evidence shows that career officials at the IRS did indeed do as Treasury Department and Health and Human Services Department officials told them. This, despite the fact that the IRS is supposed to be insulated from political meddling.

There are two dimensions to fighting a War on Terror. One is fighting terrorists and the other is fighting terrorism. In conventional warfare there isn’t that much of a difference between fighting men and their tactics. There is a wider space between fighting terrorists and their tactics.

Conventional armies use tactics to defeat enemy forces and seize territory. Terrorists however use tactics to take over mental territory. A suicide bomber is not out to take over a particular block. He is out to change how the enemy and his side think about that city block and the larger conflict.

Terrorism has succeeded in accomplishing that goal in Israel. The scale of terrorism turned every piece of land into a mathematical equation. How many lives was this village in Gaza worth? How many lives is this West Bank town worth? How many lives is East Jerusalem worth?

This emotional calculus is misleading because it is an immediate response to a set of deaths. However terrorists are not trading an end to violence for a village or a town. They are calculating how many deaths it will take to force Israel to abandon that village or town. And once they have it, they will use it to inflict more terror on another town or village, this time using rockets.

Israelis were convinced that a price in lives had been put on Gaza and that if they withdrew, the killing would end. But Gaza was just the beginning. Not the end. There is never an end.

The goal of a terrorist movement is to change the relative perceptions of strength and the freedom of movement of both sides. Terror tactics create the perception that the winning side is losing. This perception can be so compelling that both sides come to accept it as reality. Terrorists manufacture victories by trapping their enemies in no-win scenarios that wear down their morale.

That is what has been happening to Israel. The entire carrot and stick of the peace process and the suicide bombing, the final agreement that never comes and the final solution that is coming, were designed to wear down Israelis, to make their leaders and people chase down empty hopes and argue among themselves over who is to blame because there is still no peace.

The Christians of Mosul had 24 hours, the infidels of the West have a bit more time.

The just and merciful caliph gave the Christians of Mosul 24 hours to convert, leave, or die. The payment of the jizya (= dhimmitude) option, initially included in the multiple choice injunction, was withdrawn. A church dating back 1800 years, before the advent of Islam, was burned to the ground before the Christians left. The infidels of the West were too busy decrying the “massacre” in Gaza to ask for whom the bell tolls.

Ali Khamenei proposes the elimination of Israel by referendum. Former French MFA Dominique de Villepin thinks an imposed peace plan enforced by UN peacekeepers would do the trick. Hamas leaders, safely hunkered down in tunnels or abroad, exult in victory. Western media launch lethal narratives from morning to night and Jews look for the nearest shelter. Israel’s bosom buddy, the United States of America, wants an imposed ceasefire, presumably before joining in on an imposed peace plan, while slapping a brief but telling blockade on air travel to and from Israel. Did you get the message, haverim? Do unto the blockaders as they do unto Gaza.

In the aftermath of the shocking violence unleashed last weekend in Barbès and Sarcelles, benevolent French judges smiled upon the meager handful of culprits who were arrested after the Barbès operation. Suspended sentences of 4, 6, or 10 months were handed down like feeding candy to the wolves. The justice ministry has exercised its right to appeal these lenient sentences. Those arrested for mayhem in Sarcelles will theoretically go to jail, but perhaps not. Short sentences rarely lead to actual imprisonment here. It’s hard to prove that a given actor in an enraged mob actually committed this or that infraction. And it’s hard to have confidence in the government when thousands of punk jihadis show up for a banned demonstration and are not immediately dispersed. All the more so when a political party, the anti-capitalist NPA formerly led by the phony mailman Besancenot, brazenly maintains its call to demonstrate.

62% of French people polled said the pro-Palestinian demonstrations should be banned. But who’s listening?

Under pressure from interested parties, the Hollande government decided to authorize demonstrations on the 23rd and 26th of July… because every possible guarantee had been given by the organizers that there would be no débordements [literally, “overflow”]. The Communists had by then joined the NPA in fronting for the Brotherhood. Jean-Luc Mélenchon was there under the banner of the Front de Gauche that is part of the governing coalition, along with a handful of Socialist deputies. PM Manuel Valls had tried to stick to his guns. All last week he defended the ban, refuting claims that the ban was the cause of the violence. Note the lethal narrative: An authorized demonstration on July 13th replete with Death to the Jews culminates in attacks on synagogues. Therefore, demonstrations banned the following weekend yield 50 times more incitement and violence. Logical, n’est-ce pas? If I park in a no-parking zone and you tow my car away, it’s only to be expected that I will burn down the city hall and invite the assassination of the mayor.

During a visit to Cuba two weeks ago, Russian President Vladimir Putin reportedly reached an agreement to reopen the huge Russian spy base in Lourdes, on the west side of the island nation.

The Lourdes base is south of Havana and about 155 miles from the U.S. During the Cold War, the enormous base – about 28 square miles — was the home to thousands of Russian military and intelligence-gathering personnel. In about 2001, it was closed apparently because it cost too much to rent from the Cubans. Now, with oil and gas revenues propping up Putin’s neo-Soviet autocracy, the Russians are able to afford a lot more than they could 20 years ago.

Lourdes is supposed to be housing one or more Glonass ground stations. Glonass is a Russian GPS satellite system and it requires, like all such systems, ground-based calibration. Because it may hide other capabilities, such as secure communications, Glonass isn’t “glasnost” – roughly “transparency” – which was one of the final unmet promises from the Soviet regime. But Putin’s motivation for reopening Lourdes – which will be an expensive operation – aren’t very obvious.

The reality – from a military and technological viewpoint – is that Russia doesn’t need Lourdes. Espionage can be conducted from Russia and other nations. So can cyberwar. Russian cyberwarriors, who have proven themselves quite capable in attacks against Georgia, Estonia and Ukraine, can mount attacks on U.S. military, defense and industry computer networks from anywhere. They are highly active in doing so, but there’s no benefit to them in operating from Cuba that they don’t already have.

If the reasons aren’t technological, military or intelligence related, then they have to be political. By reopening Lourdes, Putin is again putting a sharp stick in President Obama’s eye. He’s grabbing at the prestige and influence in Central and South America that Russia lost when the Soviet Union ended its operations in Cuba and then fell apart entirely.

What Putin seeks is a Cuban base for Russian efforts to do the same thing that they’re doing in Eastern Europe. Reopening Lourdes restores Cuba as a primary base for Russian destabilization of Mexico as well as Central and South America. At the end of the Cold War, that danger was limited severely by the fact that the Soviet Union was rapidly going broke. But now, with Russia again able to afford military adventurism – such as the funding and arming of its insurgent proxy force in Ukraine – Russia is apparently able to afford more aid, including military aid, to regional troublemakers.

There are plenty on hand. The Soviets’ old friend from the 1980s, Daniel Ortega, has been the president of Nicaragua (again) since 2007. Ortega and other anti-American dictators (and dictator-wannabes) such as Venezuela’s Nicolas Maduro and Bolivia’s Evo Morales will be eager recipients of Russian aid tied to destabilizing their neighboring nations.

Barack Obama declared six years ago that the ultimate goal of his presidency was to fundamentally transform America. This has been not only his agenda, but for decades the goal of America’s political left wing. To transform a country one must first transform its people. Transformation takes place by changing the values by which people live and by changing their self-perception of who they are and what they are supposed to become.

Common Core does exactly that.

Common Core is to education what Obamacare is to healthcare. The purpose of both programs is to take away one’s individual choice, be it regarding healthcare or local influence on education. Both programs are transformative since they assault the most fundamental American liberties, the freedom to choose one’s doctor and medical remedies, and the freedom to educate one’s children by local values. Both programs give federal bureaucrats control over these most important aspects of life. They disenfranchise us as patients and parents. Controlling the lives of “those below” is the animating principle of Leftism and the elitists who wish to do the controlling.

A communist society takes choice away from the people and places it in the hands of a centralized apparatus removed from the people. In other words, it deprives the individual his liberty. Through centralization, the individual loses not only his liberty but is socially engineered to think a certain way and act in conformity and lock-step with how the ruling elite want its new underclass to act. Common Core seeks to create a common-ness among people, what the Communists refer to as “the masses.” America’s students are being groomed today to be future members of the “Commie Corps,” advocates and robots of a trans-individual system.

Americans have succeeded because of our special Judeo-Christian outlook on life, local control, and the confidence in a rugged individualism that inspired us to be the best we can be. Common Core changes all that. Our children will be trained by educators not to be rugged but common; not masters of our own fate but subjects of a ruling bureaucracy; not the possessors of a unique Judeo-Christian outlook but proponents of a transnational, socialist worldview.

One of the hallmarks and goals of socialist Marxism is to strip a country of its unique culture, history, attitudes, and self-perception. The first order of business for the Russian communists was to denude Russia of its Russo-ism as did Mao when stripping his country of its unique Chinese heritage. Thus, throughout the curriculum of Common Core, American heroes are minimized and castigated, our history maligned, our historic values seen as an affront to multiculturalism. Much of Common Core is an indictment of America. It indicts so as to remove.