Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Oh no! Chuckle. The New York Times now favors the extinction of the Jewish state. Shudder. Let’s see. Sulzburger fought in the Confederate army; then the newspaper virtually ignored the Ukrainian famine and the Holocaust, then reported that Fidel Castro was a moderate, then reported Islamist terrorists are moderates.
That’s a pretty accurate record right?
The headline of this article is accurate
Look, I know the author of the one-state solution article and I can tell you he’s been pushing this drivel for at least 35 years. People in Israel don’t want to be turned into a repressive Sharia state from a flourishing country a model of prosperity and one of the highest world ratings of happiness.
I might mention that Israel won every war and has a far stronger army. It is even the great Arab hope for bashing Iran and an ally of Egypt and Jordan!
So what is this nonsense?
I remember an evening when I was invited to a couple that were well-known anti-Israel activists.
We had pleasant enough conversation until late in the evening when I thought we had agreed on a West Bank- Gaza state living alongside Israel. Then the guy said, “But of course Israel will not be allowed to remain as a state.”
You can tell what your opponents really think if you listen to them. If you doubt that you should listen some time to what Palestinians say. I’ve been doing that for decades.
But of course this is nonsense. And in fact it is an endorsement of de facto genocide—make no mistake about it.
What is true, though, is a changing atmosphere. The Democratic Convention rejected by a majority vote that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel (It also voted by a majority against G-d).
Now a lot of administration officials, including Vice-President Joe Biden, are speaking at J Street. You should understand that this not a liberal, pro-peace group but an organization created by a former Arab lobbyist to destroy Israel, or at least support for it. among the American people and especially Jewish community and Congress.
I will just quote what Jesse Jackson said several years ago. I don’t mean this to be taken literally, but it a sign of h the transformation Obama’s anti-Israel views are, except of course to the majority of American Jews.
Like this one. Can you imagine a foreign policy team more hostile to Israel? Jackson, of course,was not a part of that team, but can see the obvious.
The New York Post just quoted him as having said in a French speech in October 2008 that "Zionists who have controlled American policy for decades" will lose much of their clout when Obama enters the White House.
Speaking at the World Policy Forum event in Evian, France--the place where Jewish refugees were doomed at a 1938 conference when European counties refused to save them--Jackson promised 70 years later--""a"fundamental change.” Jackson "criticized the Bush administration's diplomacy and said Barack would change that," because, as long as the Palestinians hadn't seen justice, the Middle East would "remain a source of danger to us all." Of course, Palestinians have been given billions of dollars and offered a state but still staged thousands of terrorist attacks since then and still denied Israel's right to a state.
It's called argument through blackmail. Can you imagine what massacres there would be? How about a one-state army commanded by Palestinian Arab generals? Jews who most of the Arabs hate and revile being reduced to the status of minority Christians in the Middle East. Can this be advocated by anyone serious? Nobody but a fool or liar (probably the latter) could advocate such a thing,
And Israel has had nothing to do with the Afghan Taliban, the Iran-Iraq war, al-Qaida,'the Egyptian revolution, the Tunisian revolution, and the Syrian civil war.
The Obama Administration denied Jackson’s words at the time but since then has proven them. Even an Egyptian government makes no difference if it wants to fight terrorism and preserve the peace treaty rather than the opposite policy.
But then why has the Obama Adminstration kept enthusiastic support from AIPAC? Because of the strategic situation. The prince is the prince and Israel hopes that one day--it hopes in vain--that Obama will act against Iran.
But just for three more years.
Posted by Rubin Center at 11:58 AM