President Obama's Speech Before the United Nations, September 24, 2014

​At first, I was irritated that I was forced to put Obama's speech on the backburner because of the timing of Rouhani's appearance at the United Nations, but now I am glad because I can provide irrefutable proof of my assertions. This morning, I awakened to the following headline on FoxNews.com: "U.S. considers softening demands on Iran nuke deal, report says". The story goes on to say that America is considering allowing Iran more centrifuges and more enrichment (under supervision, HA!) in exchange for Iran's assistance in fighting the Islamic State. We are about to sell Israel down the river. John Kerry is stabbing his "good friend, 'Bibi'", Prime Minister Netanyahu, in the back yet again. How people still believe this administration is pro-Israel is beyond me. Because Barack Obama says so? This administration's actions belie its words. Here is the article:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/09/26/us-considers-softening-demands-on-iran-nuke-deal-report-says/

Let me cover what Obama said, and I will tie everything in as I go. Barack Obama's speech is fodder for critique, but I will confine my discussion to the given genre of this blog. First:

"We collectively have not invested adequately in the public health capacity of developing countries. Too often we have failed to enforce the international norms when it is inconvenient to do so. And we have not confronted forcefully enough the intolerance, sectarianism, and hopelessness that feeds violent extremism in too many parts of the globe."

Sound familiar? This is almost verbatim what Hassan Rouhani said in his speech the following day. POTUS continues with his two questions for the Assembly:

"Whether the nations that are here today will be able to renew the purpose of the UN's founding and whether we will come together to reject the causes of violent extremism."

"We are here because others realize that we gain more from cooperation than conquest."

Here, Obama sets the tone that Rouhani follows the next day. "We" must "come together to reject the causes of violent extremism", and "we gain more from cooperation than conquest". Hear the similarity? Next, he sets up what is to come in the P5+1:

"This (peace and security in a world without nuclear weapons) can only take place if Iran seizes this historic opportunity. My message to Iran's leaders, and people, has been simple and consistent. Do not let this opportunity pass. We can reach a solution that meets your energy needs while assuring the world that your program is peaceful."

Really, Mr. President? A world without nuclear weapons. Hm. I can hear Iran now, "What about Israel's nukes?" Are you next going to demand that Israel disarm in the interest of "fairness"? And, what kind of "solution" will meet Iran's "energy needs while assuring the world" that their program is "peaceful"? Iran has oil that will sustain their "energy needs" for generations to come. What is the necessity for nuclear energy? According to today's report, you are planning to allow Iran to keep thousands of centrifuges, as well as enriched uranium, in exchange for their assistance in defeating a terror network Iran created. Are you truly that stupid, or are you (more likely) working in concert with Tehran in direct conflict with our ally, Israel?

"But, as we look to the future, one issue risks a cycle of conflict that could derail so much progress, and that is the cancer of violent extremism that has ravaged so many parts of the Muslim world."

Yet, POTUS, you are negotiating with the very architect of that "violent extremism".

"But in this century, we have faced a more lethal and ideological brand of terrorists who have perverted one of the world's great religions, with access to technology that allows small groups to do great harm. They have embraced a nightmarish vision that would divide the world into adherence and infidels, killing as many innocent civilians as possible, employing the most brutal methods, to indeminate (sic) people within their communities."

Um, "perverted one of the world's great religions"? How does one pervert something that was conceived in perversion? Islamists love to quote the portion of the Koran that was written in Mecca. It comprises about 1/3 of the total Koran, and indeed it is benign enough, although it still excoriates Jews and Christians for not being believers in the "truth". What Obama is doing is called "taqiyya", Islamic deception. People who are interviewed on the news trying to defend "peaceful Islam" use the first 1/3 of the Koran for their supporting documentation. What is never discussed is the other 2/3 of the Koran, which is Jihad. When Mohammad was in Mecca, he did not encounter any resistance from those he tried to persuade to come to Islam. They either converted, or at least accepted his beliefs. There was no resistance. Indeed, it is in the Meccan Koran that the "no compulsion" verse is found, because Mohammad did not encounter any opposition. It was when he went to Medina, and encountered Jews who were educated in the Torah, and who recognized the falsehoods Mohammad told regarding Abraham and Moses, and his assertion that he was a "prophet" of "allah", that he encountered resistance and it was then that his writings became intolerant and violent. Those are the writings Muslims take great care not to discuss in public. As to "innocent civilians": In Islam there are no "innocent civilians". There are believers, and there are "kafirs" (non-believers), and the Koran is clear that those kafirs who refuse to admit that "allah" is the only true god and that Mohammed is his "messenger" are to die. So, when Obama talks about "extremists" having "embraced a nightmarish vision that would divide the world into adherence and infidels,...employing the most brutal methods", he is talking about the Islam developed in Medina, and there is nothing "perverted" about this form of Islam. It IS Islam.

"I have made it clear that America will not base our entire foreign policy on reacting to terrorism. Instead, we have waged a focused campaign against al-Qaeda and its associated forces, taking out their leaders, denying them their safe havens they rely on."

Mr. President, I was unaware that America has attacked Iran.

"So we reject any suggestion of a clash of civilizations."

"At the same time, we have affirmed again and again and again that the United States is not and never will be at war with Islam. Islam teaches peace."

1) Speak for yourself, POTUS. 2) Where?

"No god condones this terror. No grievance justifies these actions."

Tell it to "allah".

"Moreover, this campaign against extremism goes beyond the narrow security challenges. For while we have degraded, methodically, core al-Qaeda, and supported a transition to a sovereign Afghan government, extremist ideology has shifted to other places, particularly in the Middle East and North Africa, where a quarter of young people have no job, where food and water could grow scarce, where corruption is rampant, and sectarian conflicts have become increasingly hard to contain."

Once again, Obama sets up Rouhani's speech by equating "extremism" with poverty. Also, how have we degraded, methodically or otherwise, "core al-Qaeda", when the core of al-Qaeda is in Tehran?

Finally, POTUS gives his four points of focus:

1) "The terrorist group known as ISIL must be degraded and ultimately destroyed."

For those who do not know, by calling the Islamic State "ISIL", Obama is slamming Israel. The Levant extends to the Mediterranean Sea. So, every time anyone refers to the IS as "ISIL", he or she is giving the illusion that Israel no longer exists, which is the goal of the Islamic State.

"There can be no reasoning, no negotiating, with this brand of evil."

The only way to stop it is to completely eradicate Islam.

2) "It is time for the world, especially Muslim communities, to explicitly, forcefully, and consistently reject the ideology of organizations like al-Qaeda and ISIL."

They will never do so, because the "ideology" is Islam.

"No children are born hating, and no children anywhere should be educated to hate other people. There should be no more tolerance of so-called clerics who call upon people to harm innocents, because they are Jewish, or because they're Christian, or because they're Muslim."

Finally, we agree.

"That means cutting off the funding that fuels this hate. It's time to end the hypocrisy of those who accumulate wealth through the global economy and then siphon funds to those who teach children to tear it down."

Well, then, start by ending aid to the Palestinian Authority. That aid goes straight to Hamas. Then, you need to have another chat with the United Nations, this time about what it teaches "Palestinians":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YGJajyjMCbs

"The ideology of ISIL, or al-Qaeda, or Boko Haram will wilt and die if it is consistently exposed and confronted and refuted in the light of day."

That is what I, and many others, are trying to do, Mr. President.

3) "We must address the cycle of conflict, especially sectarian conflict, that creates the conditions that terrorists prey upon."

Another set-up for President Rouhani.

4) "My fourth and final point is a simple one: The countries of the Arab and Muslim world must focus on the extraordinary potential of their people, especially the youth."

POTUS, the only "potential" the Arab world is interested in is the "potential" to annihilate "The West".

Now, he saves the best for last. Israel:

"We recognize as well that leadership will be necessary to address the conflict between Palestinians and Israelis. As bleak as the landscape appears, America will not give up on the pursuit of peace. Understand: the situation in Iraq, and Syria, and Libya should cure anyone of the illusion that the Arab-Israeli conflict is the main source of problems in the region. For far too long that's been used as an excuse to distract people from problems at home. The violence engulfing the region today has made too many Israelis ready to abandon the hard work of peace, and that's something worthy of reflection within Israel. Because let's be clear, the status quo in the West Bank and Gaza is not sustainable. We cannot afford to turn away from this effort. Not when rockets are fired at innocent Israelis, or the lives of so many Palestinian children are taken from us in Gaza. So long as I am president, we will stand up for the principle that Palestinians, the region, and the world will be more just and more safe with two states living side-by-side in peace and security."

Obama starts out benignly enough, but takes a serious wrong turn that has Governor Pence incensed. It slapped me in the face as well, and I am sure Ambassador Prosor and Prime Minister Netanyahu did not appreciate it, either. It will be interesting to see what the Prime Minister has to say on Monday. Anyway, "...that's something worthy of reflection within Israel". Why within Israel? Why address those who are tired and disillusioned from 66 years of fighting for the right to exist, rather than addressing Israel's detractors? "...or the lives of so many Palestinian children are taken from us in Gaza". Do you mean the miniature terrorists that UNRWA trains? "...Palestinians, the region, and the world will be more just and safe with two states living side-by-side in peace and security." What two states would those be? I presume you mean "Palestine" and Israel? How can that be, when "Palestine" has stated repeatedly that it will never recognize a Jewish state? When Hamas has stated it will never recognize a Jewish state? When your "so-called clerics" call for the destruction of the "Zionist regime" (and, by the way, the United States of America)? You are correct about one thing: the situation in the so-called "West Bank" and Gaza is untenable. Since "the world" keeps insisting on providing aid to Gaza, and seems to be impervious to the fact that all such aid goes straight to Hamas, there is no other way to demilitarize it than to re-enter and re-take Gaza, and I can hear you and John Kerry howling now. As for the "West Bank", Prime Minister Netanyahu will never give them up. Never. No way. For one thing, Judea is the core of the Jewish state. But, perhaps more important, Judea and Samaria are militarily strategic, and giving them up would be suicide for the state of Israel. I realize, POTUS, that is what you would like to see happen, but so long as Binyamin Netanyahu is Prime Minister I can assure you it will not happen. Lo yikre.

 

"The West" is Being Let Into a Trap

​Either this administration is being led around by the nose, or it has very sinister intentions. I am leaning toward the latter explanation. At any rate, last night we began a bombing campaign against the Islamic State in Syria. Joining us were Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Jordan, and Bahrain. Somewhere in the background, Qatar played an undefined role. Glaringly absent were Turkey, Egypt, and Israel, for very different reasons, as well as all of our European allies. Evidently, we got Syria's "permission", which is not surprising for reasons I will explain in a moment.

Let us review how we got to this point. The first mistake we made was in arming and training the Syrian "rebels" which, contrary to the continued denials by current and former administration officials, we have been doing for the past three years. By doing so, we helped to create this nightmare. We should have stayed out of it. "The West", by and large, does not understand the mindset of dictators and therefore has repeatedly misread the situation. We are under the impression that there are clear-cut "sides". There are not. The only "side" is them versus us ("the West"). The Arab world resents the results of World War I, and while they engage in tribal rivalries, when faced with their "real" foe, they will always band together against us. We should have heeded sound military doctrine, articulated by Prime Minister Netanyahu in a recent "Meet the Press" interview: "When your enemies are fighting, let them kill each other." Instead, as usual, we involved ourselves in something we did not understand.

Our second mistake was brought about by Barack Obama's big mouth: His "red line" in Syria. Had he never uttered those words I would never have supported the idea of getting involved in Syria in any way. However, once the words escaped his lips we had an obligation to back up those words. In August, 2013, when the "red line" was crossed (fourteen times, as I recall, the most egregious being August 23rd), we should have enforced it immediately. In fact, for three weeks it appeared we would. Israel was even convinced; they repositioned their Iron Dome battery in preparation for what would have been certain retribution against their nation for our military action. Yet, after three weeks of saber-rattling, what happened? Vladimir Putin rode in bare-chested on his white horse and saved the day...and we breathed a collective sigh of relief. What a complete and total misread of the situation, the results of which would be comical if they were not so serious.

Are we kidding? Russia to the rescue? We played right into Vladimir Putin's hand. After humiliating America with the red herring known as Edward Snowden (who did not reveal anything those "in the know" had not already known for at least ten years), complete with a New York Times editorial excoriating American "exceptionalism", Russia "saved the day".  Or, did she? Reports are that Putin and al-Assad took a page out of Saddam Hussein's playbook and moved many of the chemical weapons to Lebanon, a nice prize for Hezbollah which puts Israel in even more danger.

What is really happening is a clever set-up.

So, why did Turkey not participate? Their hostages have ben released, if indeed they were ever really hostages. Turkey is in NATO and is supposed to be our ally. They are supposedly besieged by Syrian refugees and should have a stake in seeing the Islamic State defeated for Turkey's own self-preservation. Yet, they allow members of the IS to take refuge within their borders and are harboring Hamas leaders. Turkey's Muslim Brotherhood has contributed fighters to the Islamic State. Is Turkey truly our ally? Well, Erdogan is certainly Barack Obama's ally; they are both ardent supporters of the Muslim Brotherhood. But, is Turkey America's ally? Absolutely not.

What about Egypt? General el-Sisi appears to be benign, but the fact that he is a self-described "moderate Muslim" raises alarms, as does his connections to the Muslim Brotherhood. From all appearances, Barack Obama is not in el-Sisi's good graces at the moment because of the President's strong support of Mohamed Morsi, as well as his refusal to send military aid after Morsi's ouster, so that could be one reason Egypt is not participating. However, far more troublesome is el-Sisi's decision to accept that aid from Russia. Remember that Russia is allied with Syria and Iran, so where does that put the current president of Egypt? Things are not what they seem in that country.

Where is Israel? One possibility is she chose to stay away knowing she would be retaliated against. I tend to discount that explanation because Israel is already in the cross-hairs. The probability is that the Prime Minister is heeding his own advice, and letting his enemies kill each other.

Finally, what is really going on in Syria? I have already addressed some of how the Islamic State came to be, and I will go into more detail next time. But, how and why did this group supposedly splinter from the other "rebel" groups and become so powerful? One culprit is none other than Bashir al-Assad. At this point, the reader is convinced I have lost my mind. I assure you I have not. I have simply acquired a Middle Eastern mindset. Look at what has happened. Four years ago, John Kerry thought al-Assad was a great guy; it must have been all of those extravagant state dinners. When the civil war broke out, suddenly we realized the president of Syria is not so nice. So, we helped the "rebels". The result? Money is being funneled into the Jabhat al-Nusra front and al-Nakba, two groups even America agrees are not "moderate". Yes, some of that money comes from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, and other terror sponsors. But, some also came from Bashir al-Assad. To what end? 1) Divide and conquer; and, just in case number one backfires, 2) al-Assad becomes the lesser of two evils, and guess who comes to the rescue? "The West." Think about this: Since America is arming the "moderate 'rebels'", and al-Assad et. al. are arming the Islamic State, who are Syria and its allies really fighting? America.

Once again, we have been played for fools, and we walked right into it.

Meanwhile, Iran is waiting in the wings. They are playing both ends against the middle, and have been for decades. Listen carefully to the latest video released by the Islamic State:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Sf0zuNDWUg

Part Two: Iran

There is a well-known military saying: "The enemy who is known is better than the enemy who is not known". That is a lesson the United States has yet to learn. Prior to the public emergence of the Islamic State, if we had succeeded in deposing Bashar al-Assad, did we have any idea who would have taken his place, whether he would have been better or worse for Syria and, more importantly, the United States? Look at Libya. Reagan was very effective at neutralizing Muammar Qaddafi; after the dictator's son was killed in an air strike, America did not hear from Qaddafi again until 9/11 when he called President Bush to say, "It wasn't me! What can I do to help?" But, then we decided to get rid of him. Granted, he was not a good guy and likely had a hand in 9/11. But, what was the result of this regime change? Libya is now a country of renegade terrorist groups all vying for control, and four Americans are dead. Good job.

Look at the mess we created in Egypt. The list goes on. But, Iran is the best example of why America should stay out of Middle Eastern politics. After the Shah was deposed and exiled to the United States, the Ayatollah Khomeini took power and later that year "students" overran the American Embassy in Tehran and took 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. The Iranian Hostage Crisis was only the beginning of our problems with Iran. "The West" has to realize that, in the words of Prime Minister Netanyahu, "The Arabs do not hate the West because of Israel. They hate Israel because of the West" ("A Durable Peace"). What "The West" fails to understand is, the Arab world resents the results of World War I when, after the fall of the Ottoman Empire, the Arab world was carved up into "countries". They do not wish to be countries, and they have never gotten over what they view as colonial intervention in their region. So, here comes Hezbollah and most of us are aware of the many American deaths that have occurred as a result of the terrorist activities of this Iran-sponsored organization. This past March, the world was stunned to discover that an Iranian ship was seized by Israel containing rockets headed to Hamas in Gaza. After all, don't Hamas and Hezbollah hate each other? That just goes to show how little America understands the Middle East.

A lesser-known fact is Iran's involvement in Lockerbie and 9/11. The story did not make many headlines, but a few months ago the news broke that in fact Iran hired the PFLP (People's Front for the Liberation of Palestine, the PLO-offshoot responsible for Entebbe and many other terrorist activities) to blow up that plane. Yet, Iran has yet to be held responsible. Rumblings on 9/11 were that Iran was involved in the attack; Donald Rumsfeld was almost screaming for us to attack Iran, but of course no one was listening. We were too focused on hating Saudi Arabia and preparing to bomb Tora Bora. Do not misunderstand: Saudi Arabia was also involved, and the Taliban had to be dealt with. But, why virtually no mention of Iran? Are we afraid to deal with them? Perhaps we are worried about how Russia would react; I can only speculate on that. Or, maybe we are waiting for Israel. (Mr. Prime Minister, please take the cue. I realize why you have not done so to date, but some of us are awaiting your action with much anticipation.) But, Iran has clearly been involved in countless terrorist attacks against Americans over the past 35 years, and has gotten a pass every time. Why?

Did the reader catch the reference in the IS video above to 1979? The Islamic State was boasting through John Cantlie, and in giving their fighting resume said the "mujahedeen have been fighting since 1979", which to me raised immediate alarm bells. Was the real birthplace of the Islamic State in Iran? I have often compared what is happening in the Middle East to a massive chess game. Guess where chess originated? Persia (Iran). There has been much admiration (if you can call it that) about the patience exhibited by al-Qaeda in waiting for the "right" time for its attacks. Chess is nothing but patience. One move at a time, waiting for a wrong move by your opponent so you can swoop in for the "kill". What if Iran has been playing a 35-year-long chess match with us?

I gave a brief rundown of Islam in a previous post, and I will go into it some more in my next update, which will be centered around Obama's speech before the United Nations yesterday. As fate would have it, Hassan Rouhani spoke just in time for this addition, so I will cover his speech now. He proved my point many times over in those 23 minutes. Here are some quotes, then I will tie them together:

(Re: the single goal of extremists) "The destruction of civilization, giving rise to Islamophobia, and creating a fertile ground for further intervention of foreign forces in our region."

"Today's anti-westernism is the offspring of yesterday's colonialism. Today's anti-Westernism is a reaction to yesterday's racism. Certain intelligence agencies have put blades in the hands of madmen who now spare no one."

"They (those who have created terrorism, ostensibly 'The West') need to apologize not only to this generation but to the past generations."

"Terrorism germinates in poverty, unemployment, discrimination, humiliation, and injustice, and it grows in the culture of violence. To uproot extremism we must spread justice and development, and disallow the distortion of divine teachings to justify brutality and cruelty. The pain is made greater when these terrorists spill blood in the name of religion and behead in the name of Islam. They seek to keep hidden this incontrovertible truth of history, that on the basis of the teachings of all divine prophets, from Abraham to Moses, from Jesus to Mohammad, peace be upon him, that taking the life of a single innocent human is akin to killing the whole of humanity. I am astonished that these murderous groups call themselves Islamic. What is more astonishing is that the Western media, in line with them, repeats this false claim, which provokes the hatred of all Muslims. Muslim people who every day recall their god as merciful and compassionate and have learned lessons of kindness and empathy from their prophets' teachings see this defamation as a part of an Islamophobic project."

 "The experience of the creation of al-Qaeda, the Taliban and modern extremist groups have demonstrated that no one can use extremist groups to counter an opposing state and remain impervious to the consequences of rising extremism. The repetition of these mistakes, despite many costly experiences, is perplexing."

"In the past, colonialism denied them the right (the Arab world's right to thrive) and today the shadow of war and violence threatens their security."

"Had we had greater cooperation and coordination in the Middle East, thousands of innocent Palestinians in Gaza would not have fallen victim to the Zionist regime's aggressions. We in the Islamic Republic of Iran consider interaction and confidence-building among states of the region as fundamentally essential for conflict resolution. We support any measure to promote cooperation between Islamic nations to combat extremism, threats, and aggression, and in connection with this we are prepared to play our permanent, constructive, and positive role."

"We are of the view that the nuclear situation can only be resolved through negotiations, and those who may think of any other solution would be committing a grave mistake."

"The people of Iran are devoted to certain principles and values at the apex of which are independence, development, and national pride. If this obvious national fact is not understood by our negotiating partners and they commit grievous miscalculations in the process, a historic and exceptional opportunity will be lost."

"If our interlocutors are also equally motivated and flexible (regarding the P5+1 talks), and we can overcome the problem and reach a long-standing agreement within the time remaining, then an entirely different environment will emerge for cooperation at the regional and international levels, allowing for greater focus on some very important regional issues, such as combatting violence and extremism in the region."

"The notion that Iran seeks to control other Muslim countries in the region is a myth fanned in the recent years in the context of an Iranophobic project. Those who make these claims need imaginary enemies to sustain sanctions and sow division and conflict. Thus, in this way, pushing for the redeployment of natural resources away from development. We work towards putting an end to the delusional Iranophobia, setting the stage for building strategic partnerships with our neighbors."

The reason I chose to list all of the pertinent quotes together is because I want the reader to sense the tenor of Rouhani's speech. He consistently blames "The West". Everything is "The West's" fault. If the reader did not get it the first time, please read it again. Rouhani repeatedly refers to Western intervention in the Middle East, blaming it for the "extremism" we see today. He attempts to frame America for the rise of terrorist groups, finding fault with us for "poverty, unemployment, discrimination, humiliation, and injustice", as though we are responsible for all of those things. And, of course, he took the obligatory swipe at Israel, and her "aggression" against the "Palestinians". I must also point out the not-so-veiled references to Prime Minister Netanyahu. "...those who may think of any other solution would be committing a grave mistake" is a clear warning to Israel not to take military action regardless of the results of the P5+1 negotiations. "Those who make these claims (regarding the 'myth' of Iran seeking to control other Muslim nations) need imaginary enemies to sustain sanctions and sow division and conflict" is a clear reference to the Prime Minister's repeated warnings to John Kerry and Barack Obama not to let Iran sucker them into a "bad deal". Anyway, according to Iran, everything wrong with the Middle East has as its source "The West". See what I mean? Rouhani gives what can only be described as a rallying cry for the region, calling for "cooperation between Islamic nations to combat extremism, threats, and aggression" (another swipe at Israel).

Also of note is his repeated attempts to distance himself from "extremist" Islam, when in fact Islam is, on its face, extreme.

Does the reader see what is happening here? I described earlier the reasons why dictators would deliberately fuel "extremist" groups, and Hassan Rouhani proved my point in this speech. Now that these "extremists" have been unleashed, the Arabs can blame "The West" and demand "justice". I will address his offer of assistance with the Islamic State in exchange for a nuclear deal in my post on Obama's address, but it is clear from Iran's position that this has been a gambit long in the making, and it is about to come to a head. We are, indeed, in "check", and all indications are we are about to make the wrong move, straight into "checkmate".

Our True Enemy is Western Thinking

The Arab world is very clever. They know how "the West" thinks. We believe in the good in people. We believe everyone shares our values. We believe all people love life. We take things at face value. (Case in point: The so-called "Arab spring". Americans jumped for joy, giddy with the thought that the Middle East had finally discovered democracy.) We do not study history. We do not investigate. We allow the six o'clock news to tell us what is going on in the world and what we should think about it. We are superficial; ask any college student/graduate about Occam's Razor. And, when faced with something too abhorrent for us to comprehend, we indulge in cognitive dissonance.

Since my primary focus is Israel, let me give an example from there before I bring the point home to America. In a debate in Dohar, Qatar (linked below), Norman Finkelstein made the statement that "those of us in academia know that (the 'Palestinian' situation) is a simple one", and that "it is only when the discussion moves into the public realm that it becomes contrived, manufactured":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-qA-MywWpMg

Aside from being a pompous ass, Mr. Finkelstein obviously fell in love with Occam's Razor. Well, if the solution is truly that "simple", then the professor really should call Prime Minister Netanyahu and clue him in because, despite two college degrees and decades of public service, this "simple" solution is eluding him. I am certain "Bibi" would appreciate Mr. Finkelstein's pearls of wisdom.

For the sake of brevity, I will not get into the red herring of the "Palestinian" plight. But, I agree that Norman Finkelstein's solution is a "simple" one. Give the "Palestinians" their own state. After all, that is fair, right? Never mind the seven different land offers the "Palestinians" have refused over the years. Let us forget that not only did the "Palestinians" vote in Hamas to rule Gaza in 2006, but in a recent poll they have overwhelmingly said they would vote for Ismail Haniyeh (83%). Never mind that the true goal of the "Palestinians" (indeed the entire Arab world) is to drive Israel into the sea:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2wy4VnyyNZ8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjuDTO8fgqM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whU2qFd89fA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_99u4qgYVVU

Forget all of that. Just give these people their own state. OK, Mr. Finkelstein: Where? Gaza? The so-called "West Bank"? I suppose you want the pre-1967 borders, which (let us get the language straight) is the 1949 Armistice Line, a line that is militarily indefensible - a lesson that was learned in 1973. What is your real goal, Professor? The destruction of Israel? Or, have you simply drowned yourself in Western "logic"?

I admit to my own struggles. After all, I am an American. But, unlike most people, I have buried myself in the study of the Middle East, which admittedly has irreversibly warped my mind. Despite my best efforts, though, sometimes I am still blindsided by something I thought I understood. This morning was one such time. America has believed the attack on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon in 2001 was targeted for 9/11 because 9-1-1 is our emergency phone number. Al-Qaeda was being "cute". It was a logical assumption. But, it was wrong, and that assumption proves the ignorance, arrogance, and lack of understanding that is prevalent in Western culture. The true reason for the selection of September 11th for the attack on America is found in history.

September 11, 1683.

The day Vienna was almost overrun by Islamists, but who were defeated by the Polish army (see 52L40ff):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krvCQbzPKiI

http://www.islam-watch.org/Stunich/Why-9.11-Occurred-on-September-11.htm

We do not know our enemy. We completely misinterpreted what al-Qaeda did, and why they chose that day. Undoubtedly, they have been laughing at us for thirteen years, while using our foolishness as evidence of our self-centeredness, and we handed them the ammunition.

History. I often wondered how seemingly well-educated people could be brainwashed into a medieval ideology that makes no logical sense. The answer lies in the subject matter that is studied. Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is an expert in Islamic studies. He knows the entire history of Islam, and we can be certain he will use that knowledge against us, and play Western weaknesses against us, and unless we commit ourselves to learning about our enemy we are going to be defeated by an even more insidious enemy than the Islamic State.

Ourselves.

In law enforcement they say "ignorance of the law is no excuse". Why? If I do not know it is against the law to park next to a fire hydrant, that is not my fault, is it? The reaon is, if ignorance were an excuse, people could simply insert earplugs, don blind folds, and do whatever they please until someone tells them they cannot. (By the way, the word "ignorance" means "to ignore". It is an active verb.)

Ignorance of Islam is no excuse.

NOTE: For those who would like to begin educating yourselves, I have a question for you. What is it you think you know about the Crusades? The Spanish Inquisition? (Emphasis on the word "think".) Start there.

 

Anti-Semitism

I was at the White House shortly after the start of the latest Gaza war. I was holding a sign with a large, blue Star of David with the caption: "Read it and weep, POTUS. Am Yisrael Chai." I positioned myself across from the permanent anti-war display, and it was not long before the woman replaced her anti-war signs with anti-Israel signs, complete with that ridiculous picture that circulates on the Internet that purports to show how "Palestine" has shrunk over the years thanks to Israeli land-grabs. She also began waving her "Palestine" flag. I thought it was rather humorous. Anyway, what I did not know was there were several groups of Israelis visiting that week, and suddenly a group of teens walked up, gave me a fist-pump, and yelled "Am Yisrael Chai!". They scared me to death! I was not expecting it, and I was so dumb-struck the only thing I could manage to say in reply was, "Shalom!" Every single Israeli I met that day had his picture taken with me and my sign, and thanked me profusely for what I was doing. I found that to be bittersweet. Sweet because what I do is rather lonely, and the gratitude was much appreciated. Bitter because I kept thinking to myself, "This should not be." It should not be that Israel has to feel such gratitude. It should not be that Israel feels so alone. I know that the Prime Minister says, "We must accept the world the way that it is, not the way we think it should be". But, I am stuck on "should".

Lately I have been deluged with anti-Semitic, hateful messages on Twitter. It seems those who are pro-Israel are outnumbered at least a thousand to one. What is wrong with this world? I am not talking about the Islamists who are bred to hate. I am talking about people who should be intelligent enough to read through the rhetoric and reach intelligent conclusions. Yet, the propaganda is bought with little, if any, question. Israel "stole" the land. Israel is "ethnically-cleansing" the "Palestinians". Israel is committing "war crimes". Israel is committing "genocide". Israelis are "terrorists". The Prime Minister is a "baby-killer" and a "Nazi" (what I believe to be the most obscene accusation of all).

I do not mean to trivialize what is happening, but I often liken Israel and the Arab world to the schoolyard bully. Johnny punches Billy a dozen times. When Billy finally gets sick of it, Billy hits Johnny back. Johnny then runs to the teacher screaming, "Teacher! Billy hit me!" And, rather than taking the time to find out what happened, the teacher gives Billy detention. Absurd.

Yet, that is anti-Semitism in a nutshell. "Zionism" has become the code word for "evil". "Zionists" are the problem. Jews are OK, but "Zionists" are bad. Is this what is taught in today's universities? Are critical thinking courses extinct? Apparently, history courses are, because I cannot count the number of people who confront me with the "history" of the "Palestinians", and how it was their land until the Jews came along. Gone are the 3,500 years in which Jews have been continuously present in what is now Israel. Suddenly, the "Palestinians" were there for 3,500 years, and the Jews "invaded" them. Never mind the Ottoman War, British rule, the British Mandate...no. The "Palestinians" were robbed.

On that point, we agree. The "Palestinians" were robbed. They were robbed of their very identities. Yasser Arafat could not be more proud, albeit from the grave. His propaganda has taken hold in a way not even he could have imagined.

I wrote the following as a free-lance exercise a few months ago, and it seems to be timely so I am printing it here:

"The more I follow events in Israel, the more protective I feel of her and the more my heart breaks for her.

"Imagine a life where you are surrounded by people who want you dead, who do not believe you have a right to exist, who will lie about you, who turn every day into a fight for survival. Imagine a world that perceives your every move as having some ulterior motive, that you intend harm, that your very being is a threat to their existence. Imagine your life under a microscope, your every move scrutinized and criticized, feeling the need to explain every action and almost apologize for sharing oxygen with the rest of the world.

"Who can live under such strain, such unceasing and overwhelming pressure to conform to impossible standards imposed upon you by others who do not even impose those standards upon themselves? How does one learn to cope with such hypocrisy and unrealistic expectations without going mad?

"I cannot imagine it, and so I weep for Israel. Yet, she does not ask for my tears, only my acceptance of her. Somehow, miraculously, Israel not only survives but in fact thrives and sets an example for all to see if we would only open our eyes."

Am Yisrael Chai.

Shalu Shalom Yerushalaim.



An Open Letter to World Leaders re: The Atrocities of Muhammad

In order to dispense with the myth of "peaceful Islam" I am going to dig up the roots. Whether Muhammad was one person, a hodge-podge of multiple charlatans, or a figment of someone's imagination, the fact remains that Muslims believe Muhammad was the messenger of "allah", and was "the prophet". So, using that as my premise, here is what "the prophet" did in the name of "allah" at the inception of this "religion of peace":

An overview:

http://www.islamreform.net/new-page-183.htm

http://www.think-israel.org/derafsh-kaviyani.mohammed.html

https://www.facebook.com/notes/knowledge-is-power/in-islams-own-writings-muhammads-massacres-and-sex-slaves/523705024374034

Slaughter of Apostates, Jews, Christians, Bedouins:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tCPgl2ieM8

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkP50OuY_IU&index=1&list=PLA63B09D7CCB0BBD0

The purpose of this post is not to give an in-depth, page-by-page analysis of the Koran, although it makes for interesting reading. It rails against Jews, and Christians, and those who turn from Islam, and sentences all who do not "repent" to death. The "Zionist" conspiracies we have all heard about can be found in verses that speak of "Jews and their secret intentions". (The Koran is such a peaceful, tolerant book.) But, because people love to cherry-pick verses, assign to those verses a particular meaning, and then argue until the end of time that their interpretation is correct. I am steering clear of opening that door, at least for now.

But, we see that "the prophet" was a pedophile, a rapist, a thief, a slave-holder, a terrorist, and a genocidal bigot who advocated and was responsible for the deaths of countless people who did not believe as he thought they should. And, according to "the prophet", "allah" not only condoned his barbarism, but actually directed Muhammad to commit these atrocities.

How can any "religion", rooted in such unabashed evil, be "peaceful"? It cannot, and the proof is the Islamic State. The IS is the natural result of the progressive illness known as "Islam"

I encourage those who have not read my assessment of Obama's speech on the IS (see post dated September 11, 2014) to do so, and when you get to the link I provided to Walid Shoebat's interview, MEMORIZE IT. He provides a detailed overview of the evil of Islam, from the point of view of a former terrorist...himself..

Barack Obama's September 10, 2014 Speech

Obama's speech of September 10th, 2014 was a classic study in taqiyya (the Islamic practice of deception). He said: "ISIL is not Islamic. No religion condones the killing of innocents. And the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim. And ISIL is certainly not a state."

"No religion condones the killing of innocents." In Islam, the only "innocents" are those who worship "allah" and the prophet Mohammed in the way "allah" says they are required to do. Anyone else is not "innocent". They are "kafir" (disbelievers), and "allah" deals with them very harshly in the Koran. "And the vast majority of ISIL's victims have been Muslim." So? 1) Why did Barry mention Muslims first? Are the other religions of lesser importance? 2) According to the Koran, any Muslim who turns from Islam (and "turning" is completely subjective) is to be killed.

 http://www.islam-watch.org/Sami/Islam-Tolerant-Religion-Kill-the-Infidels.htm 

"And ISIL is certainly not a state." Really? You mean like "Palestine" is not a state? Oh, wait. Barry believes "Palestine" is a state. He has some rather selective reasoning. The Islamic State has taken territory by force, stealing land and murdering indigenous religious minorities, and has declared itself to be a state. How is that any different from "Palestine"? Arabs tried (literally) to shove the Jews into the sea. Does Barry need a lesson in the history of Israel?

Let us continue. "These terrorists are unique in their brutality. They execute captured prisoners. They kill children. They enslave, rape, and force women into marriage. They threaten their religious minority with genocide." Hm. "Unique"? Really?

http://www.ask.com/wiki/Banu_Qurayza

http://www.answering-islam.org/Authors/Arlandson/qurayza_jews.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Banu_Qurayza

Before I continue, it would behoove everyone to listen carefully to this interview with Walid Shoebat:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h9uFfrgZstY

That should save me time in addressing the following quote:

"Instead, we must strengthen the opposition as the best counterweight to extremists like ISIL, while pursuing the political solution necessary to solve Syria's crisis once and for all."

Get it?

"We will continue to provide humanitarian assistance to innocent civilians who've been displaced by this terrorist organization. This includes Sunnis and Shia Muslims, who are at grave risk, as well as tens of thousands of Christians and other religious minorities."

Here we have those "innocent civilians" again, and why does Barry insist on listing Muslims first (again), qualifying it with "...who are at grave risk..."? Does that mean the "...tens of thousands of Christians and other religious minorities" are at any LESS risk?

"Already allies are flying planes with us over Iraq, sending arms and assistance to Iraqi security forces and the Syrian opposition, sharing intelligence and providing billions of dollars in humanitarian aid."

"...sending arms and assistance to Iraqi security forces and the Syrian opposition,..."? Who are these "Iraqi security forces"? Are these the same "security forces" we hired in Libya (the February 17th Martyr's Brigade)? The ones who were TERRORISTS? The ones who killed Ambassador Stevens? THOSE "security forces"? So, rending aid to so-called "security forces" and Syrian "opposition". In other words, aiding terrorism. YOU ARE DOING NOTHING BUT AIDING THE ENEMY, BARRY.

And, let us get this out of the way: The proper term for "ISIL" is the Islamic State.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2014/09/09/isis-vs-isil-vs-islamic-state-the-political-importance-of-a-much-debated-acronym/

As for the end of Barry's speech, I am going to reserve that for my next update because it applies to the question people have been asking me. I have addressed it on Twitter, but a detailed explanation requires more space, so I will outline what we NEED to do about the Islamic State in my next update, slated for Friday.

Meanwhile, I am not even going to go into Obama's ridiculous assessment of our economy. It is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

September 12, 2014

I failed to mention one thing yesterday. This business of Syria threatening us. Clearly, we have not gotten "permission" to strike the IS, not that I care, but I would like to point out last year's pivotal moment. When Obama's "red line" was crossed, and we sabre-rattled for two weeks, Israel moved its Iron Dome battery in preparation for an attack by Syria. Of course, when we backed down, it was all for naught, and while Prime Minister Netanyahu never said anything publicly, he could not have been happy. That cost Israel a fortune.

Now, there is no question the IS must be struck at its base, which is Syria. But, my concern is this: Syria can threaten America all it wants for failing to get their "permission". They can't hurt us. What they CAN and WILL do is attack Israel. For the first time in six years we must bear that in mind as we attempt to reverse the damage our country has caused with its foolish Middle East foreign policy.

So, what do we do? I will be up front; the plan I have come up with scares me. We should not have gotten ourselves in this situation in the first place, but here we are. I propose we work with Saudi Arabia. While I do not trust the Saudis, I do trust the House of Saud's desire to stay in power, and I believe the IS has them scared. We also need to work with Egypt. I do not trust el-Sisi either, but he has enough problems with the Muslim Brotherhood so I think he is motivated as well. I also have problems with Jordan but they, too, are worried about self-preservation. And, it goes without saying that we can and must work with Israel.
If you notice, nowhere in this proposal do I suggest arming "rebels". I am not certain we should arm anyone. I say we need to provide tactical and logistical support to those countries with a vested interest in getting rid of the IS. Of course, we should definitely form a coalition with our allies; that goes without saying. Great Britain, France, and Germany come to mind. But, contrary to Obama's philosophy, America needs to take the lead as the only remaining superpower (IF we still have that status).
Notice I also did not suggest working with Iran. It is insane enough that we are negotiating with them about their nuclear program. Insane. We certainly do not need to team up with Hezbollah. Oh, wait. We are already doing so in Lebanon. IS THIS ADMINISTRATION OUT OF ITS COLLECTIVE MIND?
At any rate, we need to be very careful, and in the end, trust no one. But, doing nothing is not an option. We must also deal with Russia. But that is for my next blog.
NOTE: As I was preparing this post for publication, the news broke that Russia has condemned Obama's "attack" on the IS, saying that any action without the approval of the UNSC "would be an act of aggression and flagrant violation of international law". I thought Russia was opposed to terrorism? (Can you say "Crimea"?) I am being facetious. Putin and al-Assad have both aided in the creation of the IS. That statement runs counter to "Western" thinking, but only because those in "the West" do not understand the mind of a dictator. To them, it makes perfect sense, and America has played right into their hands.

Israel, Gaza, and "Friendly-Fire"

In recent weeks, I have been lambasted for my support of Prime Minister Netanyahu. Many of these attacks have come from Israelis, which frankly is astonishing. Especially in time of war, Bogie Ya'alon is correct. People should keep their mouths shut. However, I feel compelled to explain politics (and the PM) to the detractors. Please make note of the fact that I despise politics. However, it is a necessary evil, so I try to understand it.
Most recently, I had a situation occur in my life that made me re-think Israel's PR campaign. Until then, I thought it was a waste of time. Israel has every right to defend herself. The end. Or, so I thought. In reality, it is not that simple.
Israel is bullied by the world. It is not right, but it is reality. Everyone second-guesses everything Israel does, and imposes ridiculous standards upon that state. 13,000+ rockets, but let Israel bomb a building and see what happens. Mass hysteria. Those bastards. Genocide, atrocities, human rights violations, Nazis (how OBSCENE). It seems the minute someone utters the word "Israel", seven billion people lose their minds.
This is the battle Prime Minister Netanyahu faces. How to convince people he has the right to defend his people (again, OBSCENE). I know beyond any doubt that, when America is attacked (when we don't have a terrorist-lover in office), we throw caution to the wind. Yet, when Israel is attacked, we micro-manage. We say, "show maximum restraint". Are you kidding? Did we "show maximum restraint" in Tora Bora? No, nor did we CARE. What is the PROBLEM?
It is Israel. That is the problem. They must live by a completely different, ridiculous standard. Those who criticize Prime Minister Netanyahu do not understand the world. He does. He has an IQ higher than the collective IQ of the Knesset. Perhaps that is the problem. Few people can keep up with him. I confess I have my own problems keeping up with him sometimes, and I study that man intensely.

* * * * *

Current events fit in perfectly with what I wrote in the beginning of this post. Yesterday, the State Department went insane over Israel's new land acquisition in the so-called "West Bank". Speculation is the declaration of Gush Etzion settlement bloc is for the purpose of linking it to Israel itself. There are also rumors that this is in retaliation for the abduction of three Israeli teens which ultimately led to the latest Gaza war. In actuality these two are not at cross-purposes. Prime Minister Netanyahu has explained at great length, both verbally and in print, the necessity of "strategic depth" in order to protect Israel. With this latest security breach in the "West Bank", the Prime Minister has decided to "put his money where his mouth is". So, what is the problem? It is being called a "land-grab". Those damned Jews are taking over the Arab world. OMG As I said, say "Israel". Watch people lose all sense of reason.
And, I am damned sick of the United States of America interfering in the affairs of Israel. When was the last time Israel called us and "demanded" that we do this, that, and the other thing? Yet, Obama does it all the time in reverse. What gives us the right to interfere in the affairs of a sovereign nation unless it is a threat to us and/or the world? I realize there is a parallel between the America/Israel relationship and the one that exists within our own borders regarding federal money. Briefly put, the instant someone receives money from Uncle Sam, he owns you. Schools, banks, businesses, Social Security recipients, etc. Federal money comes with more strings than one can ever count. So, I know what is going on with Israel. We give them money, and we are under the impression that, until that money is paid in full, we own Israel. Well, I take exception to that philosophy for a number of reasons.
First, if we trust Israel enough to give them money, then we should trust them enough to know what they should do with it.
Second, contrary to popular opinion, the United States' relationship with Israel is not one-sided, nor does Israel continue to exist because we come riding in to save the day. Just check a history book to see how nonsensical that assertion is. But, we benefit from Israel in so many ways it far outweighs whatever inconvenience America thinks it is enduring. Militarily, technologically, intelligence, counter-terrorism...and the list goes on.
Third, when America makes the decision to give money to an ally, it should be a gift in the sense that we should hand it over and let go of it. Not use it as a noose around the other country's neck and as an excuse to run that country. I believe we have enough problems running our own without trying to run others from across the Atlantic.
More later. Stay tuned.