RUTHFULLY YOURS

Let the nuclear arms race begin…
obama nukes

In May 2015 President Barack Obama defended the nuclear deal with Iran as the only possibility to avert a nuclear arms race in the Middle East.

In June Saudi Arabia inked a deal with France to build two nuclear reactors.
Saudi Arabia holds the second largest oil reserves in the world.

This week the United Arab Emirates signed a deal with Russia to supply the country with enriched uranium needed for the UAE’s nuclear power plant.

This comes one month after Democrats approved Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.

http://www.zionism101.org/

The purpose of this site is to teach about the history of Zionism.

Zionism is the political movement that began in the late 1800s and resulted in the creation of the modern State of Israel.

For nearly 2,000 years, since the destruction of the Second Temple by the Romans in 70 A.D., the Jews had prayed for the re-establishment of a Jewish state.

The Jews made many attempts to reassert their sovereignty in the Land of Israel. All of them failed. Zionism succeeded.

Discover the people who made it happen, the battles they fought, the setbacks that nearly defeated them. Come to understand the power of the Zionist idea and how it moved millions.

In Deuteronomy, the people of Israel are told that their enemies will come from one direction but will flee in seven. Nowadays, something like the opposite seems to be true, with Israel’s enemies coming at her from many directions. One of these is from within. These internal enemies are the subject of Jews Against Themselves, a collection of 18 essays written over a span of 30 years by the scholar Edward Alexander. Alexander describes “the new forms taken by Jewish apostasy in an age when Jewish existence is threatened more starkly and immediately than at any time since the Nazi war against the Jews.” He notes that there are always readers astonished to learn that Israel-bashing Jews exist. But precisely these home-grown haters are the ones who “play a disproportionate role in blackening Israel’s image.”

Like Jewish apostates of medieval times, these “modern Jewish apostates,” carry out with greater zeal than non-Jews the persecution of their brethren. But there are differences between the medieval and modern apostate. In medieval times, Jews fled from their religion. Today, they trumpet their Jewishness. Here Alexander quotes Cynthia Ozick: “So it is as self-declared Jews, as loyal and honorable Jews, as Jews in the line of the prophets … that we nowadays hear arguments against the survival, or the necessity, or the legitimacy of the state of Israel.”

W e have been an admirer of David Isaac’s commendable documentary series, “Zionism 101”. It is a beautiful constructed graphic Baedeker and comprehensive guide to the origins and evolution of religious and political Zionism. We count him among the leading defenders of Israel, the Jewish nation and the Diaspora, the ‘galut’. Thus, I found it in character for him to publish a review of a new book of withering essays by University of Washington scholar, Edward Alexander, “Jews Against Themselves”. Isaac’s review of Alexander‘s collection of jeremiads, “The Enemy Within” published in today’s Washington Free Beacon excoriates these diverse ‘shadtlanim’ beyond the usual suspects. Isaac pays tribute to Alexander withering and acerbic wit in these essays. He writes:

Alexander describes “the new forms taken by Jewish apostasy in an age when Jewish existence is threatened more starkly and immediately than at any time since the Nazi war against the Jews.” He notes that there are always readers astonished to learn that Israel-bashing Jews exist. But precisely these home-grown haters are the ones who “play a disproportionate role in basic

Isaac notes Alexander’s theme threading his oeuvre defending Israel against the usual and not so usual suspects::

The dark, creepy murk of Steven Spielberg’s 2011 Lincoln also seeps into his new film, Bridge of Spies, an account of the 1957 exchange between the U.S. and the Soviet Union of captured espionage agents, the Russian Colonel Rudolph Abel and the American pilot Gary Francis Powers. This gloom can be attributed to Spielberg’s suggestion, in both films, of American political anxiety. After the ebullient history of Amistad, he has gone to the shadowy partisan chicanery behind Lincoln’s 14th Amendment to the Constitution and now to this consideration of the United States’ lack of innocence in global matters. Scenes of Abel’s and Powers’s secretive missions, and eventual imprisonment, juxtapose how our government and military matched Russia’s unprincipled subterfuge.

In Lincoln the weird darkness passed for cynical realism, but in Bridge of Spies it conveys disillusionment. When attorney James B. Donovan (Tom Hanks) defends Abel before the Supreme Court, the imagery is overcast, somber; when Powers is detained by a Russian court, sunlight shines through the casements. Seem anti-American? In visual terms, Bridge of Spies is an ACLU movie. Through Donovan’s difficult maneuvers (against public disapproval and family discouragement), Spielberg pursues the sanctity of civil-liberties issues. Donovan, an insurance lawyer who served at the Nuremberg trials, must fight Cold War paranoia — presented as an eternal threat to America democracy.

Many of our policy debates and conflicts both domestic and foreign call on history to validate their positions. At home, crimes from the past like slavery and legal segregation are used to justify present policies ranging from racial set asides to housing regulations long after those institutions have been dismantled. Abroad, our jihadist enemies continually evoke the Crusades, “colonialism,” and “imperialism” as justifications for their violence. Yet the “history” used in such fashion is usually one-sided, simplistic, or downright false. Nor is the reason hard to find: as we read in 1984, “Who controls the past . . . controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.” Bad history is a powerful instrument for gaining political power.

Nowhere is the abuse of history more rampant than in the Middle East. Since World War II all the problems whose origins lie in dysfunctional tribal and religious beliefs and behaviors have been laid at the feet of “colonialism” and “imperialism.” Western leftists––besotted both by a marxiste hatred of liberal democracy, and by juvenile noble-savage Third-Worldism–– have legitimized this specious pretext, which now for many has become historical fact.

‘Ending the wars” has been at the top of this president’s foreign-policy goals since he took office in 2009, without regard for the consequences. His reversal of his pledge to liquidate our presence in Afghanistan and decision to leave 5,500 American troops in Afghanistan when he leaves office in 2017 is a concession to reality, although a limited one.

It has been clear for some time that the Taliban has been gaining momentum, and that Afghan troops might collapse absent American support. The president has finally, reluctantly, reversed course, and only after a near-united front of parties interested in the fate of Afghanistan — from American intelligence and the Joint Chiefs to the government of Afghanistan itself — agreed on the folly of Obama’s planned total drawdown.

Anyone who believes in a gentler Taliban, open to compromise and negotiation, need look no farther than its occupation of Kunduz. Its rule was characteristically horrific and totalitarian. Afghan National Security Forces managed to push the Taliban out of Kunduz, with American help.