Much to the surprise and shock of many political prognosticators, Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu and his Likudniks emerged from Israel's recent elections victorious. However, the political composition of the newly constituted Knesset does not consist of a solid majority of Likud's ideological soul-mates, as the previous one did.
In fact, the Knesset actually shifted slightly leftward: the coalition of left-wing parties gained four seats formerly in the thrall of Likud and its rightist compatriots. The number of seats held by the two center parties remained constant.
One of the centrist groups, the Kulanu (Hebrew for "all-of-us") has endorsed the Likud-dominated coalition, giving it a solid majority of 67 seats in the Knesset; the threshold for a majority is 61. But this alliance could prove to be a shaky one. Sharp disagreements over domestic policy between the two parties could have an impact. The Likudniks have a long, bearded history of corruption and graft, as well as
preaching the gospel of selfishness. The income disparity within Israel is as significant as ours here in the US and is apparently becoming more acute.
Bibi's electoral support was dependent on his ability to frighten a significant number of Israeli Jews with his racist dog-whistles. He appears to have succeeded. But how long can it hold together? For starters, Kulanu Party leader Moshe Kahlon was expecting to be appointed as the Minister of Finance, despite his fractious history with Bibi. (Kahlon had been a Likudnik, but apparently broke away to form a new organization, most likely over colliding perspectives on domestic policy. He had previously been the finance minister until Netanyahu dismissed him). There are reports that one of the religious parties, United Torah Judaism, might be given control of finance instead.
Would that decision be enough to scuttle the coalition? Who knows. If domestic issues ever become as great a concern as Israel's 24-7 state of siege (partially self-induced), Bibi could be in trouble. Maybe if he convinces large numbers of Israeli Jews to continue hating on the Palestinians and the Iranians, he could survive.
Then again, suppose Netanyahu responds to international pressure, eases up on the Palestinians and speaks of statehood --- even if it's just lip service. A few of his extreme right-wing partners might well drop him like a hot potato: maybe enough to deep-six the coalition from his right flank.
One way or another, I believe that Bibi's --- and Likud's --- political future may be dicey. There are others who are far more familiar with the complexities of Israeli politics than I. Still, it's a gut feeling.
Tuesday, March 31, 2015
Friday, March 13, 2015
Bibi the Historian & Foreign Policy Maven
I listened intently to Benjamin (Bibi) Netanyahu's recent speech before the US Congress. Nothing he said really surprised me. Just vintage Bibi: Israel survives in a hostile neighborhood where all their neighbors hate them and want to see them wiped off the face of the map.
There are, however, two bothersome details that Bibi chooses to routinely ignore:
1) Israel's possession of a nuclear arsenal, the best-kept
secret that everybody knows.
2) The plight of the Palestinians. He didn't mention them
even once!
The Obama administration, under the stewardship of Secretary of State John Kerry, have been negotiating with their Iranian counterparts with the intent of achieving an agreement that both parties can live with. Yet Mr. Netanyahu has soundly condemned the entire process without even giving it a chance, let alone knowing anything about the provisions.
Bibi insists that the Iranians can't be trusted, because he believes, among other things, that they have secret sites for developing nuclear weaponry --- this, despite the fact that Israel's own intelligence agency, the Mossad, has assured him that Iran is a long way away from becoming a nuclear threat and that there's no evidence of any sort of hidden stash.
That stated, here's a hypothetical: Suppose the Iranians were on the verge of creating a nuclear weapon, despite their routine denials. Isn't it possible that they might believe themselves to be in mortal danger from Israel, and want one in self-defense? Realistically, why would Iran be more likely than Israel to initiate a nuclear catastrophe? The concept of mutually assured destruction worked flawlessly
during our Cold War with the Soviet Union.
Now, on to the subject of the region's history. Renowned Historian Benjamin Netanyahu stated that aggression against its Jewish minorities had occurred throughout the history of Iran and Persia. To a great extent that was true in varying degrees, up until the 20th Century. The Pahlavi dynasties were secular and didn't persecute Jews nor other non-Muslims for practicing their faiths. However, the senior Pahlavi, the first Shah of Iran, did ultimately declare allegiance to the Nazis. The younger Shah, Reza Pahlavi, a vicious autocrat --- loved by the US because he was an avowed anti-Communist --- brooked no opposition, executing his critics regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
There were, however, two short ages of enlightenment in 20th Century Iran, in 1905 and again in 1951. During the latter year, a freely elected secular democracy emerged, with Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh as its head-of-state. Progressive social policies, including social security and land reform were implemented.
An additional measure, which proved to be the Mossadegh administration's undoing, was the takeover of the privately owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which had been exploiting Iran's massive oil reserves for 38 years with preciously meager compensation for the Iranians. So the new government believed that the seizure was justified.
Unfortunately, the oil industry poobahs had issues with the Mossadegh administration's nationalization of Iran's oil; they prevailed upon the Central Intelligence Agency and their British counterpart, MI5, to engineer the overthrow of Mossadegh. (President Eisenhower approved the action --- not one of his more stellar decisions). Reza Pahlavi, the young Shah, was installed in his place. The fact that he was every bit as monstrous a tyrant as Saddam Hussein didn't seem to matter. He was our friend, as was Saddam prior to his incursion into Kuwait. Both regimes, as horrid as they were, were secular. Neither singled out Jews nor any other non-Muslims for religious persecution. (One of Saddam's heavy-hitters, Tariq Aziz was Roman Catholic).
The Shah prevailed for 26 years; the Iranians overthrew him with no outside help. Unfortunately, following a period of uncertainty, the Mullahs emerged as the supreme leaders. But once again, Jews have not been singled out for persecution. Most of Iran's Jewish community has since emigrated; only 8,600 remain. I'm not going to suggest that their life in Iran is idyllic, but they are apparently free to worship as they please.
If history is a reliable guide, the people of Iran have demonstrated that they're capable of determining their own destiny. With an increasingly younger demographic, it's probably just a matter of time.
Netanyahu's trigger-happy rhetoric serves no purpose other than to burnish his credentials as a champion of Israel's extreme right, without whose support he could well be defeated when Israel goes to the polls on March 17th. Oh yeah, he's also proven to be an obliging handmaiden of the congressional Republicans, as a vital cog in their relentless crusade to hobble President Obama.
Netanyahu and congressional Republicans' attempt to sabotage ongoing US negotiations with Iran amounts to a dangerous game of chicken. Willfully or not, our own home-grown right-wingers have established common cause with Iran's worst saber-rattlers. Fortunately, that country's foreign minister, Javad Zarif, who studied in the US, is savvy enough to know what's going on here on this side of the pond. But still, I find it mind-boggling that Mr. Boehner & Company are so hot to trot to have a roll in the sack with Iran's hardliners.
It's too bad that Bibi was born in Israel; he actually came of age in suburban Philadelphia. (Ever notice how he sometimes swallows part of a syllable with certain words such as water/wuddah?) Otherwise he could move back to the US and throw his hat in the ring as a Republican presidential candidate.
Y'know what? I'd bet he'd get nominated!
There are, however, two bothersome details that Bibi chooses to routinely ignore:
1) Israel's possession of a nuclear arsenal, the best-kept
secret that everybody knows.
2) The plight of the Palestinians. He didn't mention them
even once!
The Obama administration, under the stewardship of Secretary of State John Kerry, have been negotiating with their Iranian counterparts with the intent of achieving an agreement that both parties can live with. Yet Mr. Netanyahu has soundly condemned the entire process without even giving it a chance, let alone knowing anything about the provisions.
Bibi insists that the Iranians can't be trusted, because he believes, among other things, that they have secret sites for developing nuclear weaponry --- this, despite the fact that Israel's own intelligence agency, the Mossad, has assured him that Iran is a long way away from becoming a nuclear threat and that there's no evidence of any sort of hidden stash.
That stated, here's a hypothetical: Suppose the Iranians were on the verge of creating a nuclear weapon, despite their routine denials. Isn't it possible that they might believe themselves to be in mortal danger from Israel, and want one in self-defense? Realistically, why would Iran be more likely than Israel to initiate a nuclear catastrophe? The concept of mutually assured destruction worked flawlessly
during our Cold War with the Soviet Union.
Now, on to the subject of the region's history. Renowned Historian Benjamin Netanyahu stated that aggression against its Jewish minorities had occurred throughout the history of Iran and Persia. To a great extent that was true in varying degrees, up until the 20th Century. The Pahlavi dynasties were secular and didn't persecute Jews nor other non-Muslims for practicing their faiths. However, the senior Pahlavi, the first Shah of Iran, did ultimately declare allegiance to the Nazis. The younger Shah, Reza Pahlavi, a vicious autocrat --- loved by the US because he was an avowed anti-Communist --- brooked no opposition, executing his critics regardless of their religious beliefs or lack thereof.
There were, however, two short ages of enlightenment in 20th Century Iran, in 1905 and again in 1951. During the latter year, a freely elected secular democracy emerged, with Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh as its head-of-state. Progressive social policies, including social security and land reform were implemented.
An additional measure, which proved to be the Mossadegh administration's undoing, was the takeover of the privately owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company, which had been exploiting Iran's massive oil reserves for 38 years with preciously meager compensation for the Iranians. So the new government believed that the seizure was justified.
Unfortunately, the oil industry poobahs had issues with the Mossadegh administration's nationalization of Iran's oil; they prevailed upon the Central Intelligence Agency and their British counterpart, MI5, to engineer the overthrow of Mossadegh. (President Eisenhower approved the action --- not one of his more stellar decisions). Reza Pahlavi, the young Shah, was installed in his place. The fact that he was every bit as monstrous a tyrant as Saddam Hussein didn't seem to matter. He was our friend, as was Saddam prior to his incursion into Kuwait. Both regimes, as horrid as they were, were secular. Neither singled out Jews nor any other non-Muslims for religious persecution. (One of Saddam's heavy-hitters, Tariq Aziz was Roman Catholic).
The Shah prevailed for 26 years; the Iranians overthrew him with no outside help. Unfortunately, following a period of uncertainty, the Mullahs emerged as the supreme leaders. But once again, Jews have not been singled out for persecution. Most of Iran's Jewish community has since emigrated; only 8,600 remain. I'm not going to suggest that their life in Iran is idyllic, but they are apparently free to worship as they please.
If history is a reliable guide, the people of Iran have demonstrated that they're capable of determining their own destiny. With an increasingly younger demographic, it's probably just a matter of time.
Netanyahu's trigger-happy rhetoric serves no purpose other than to burnish his credentials as a champion of Israel's extreme right, without whose support he could well be defeated when Israel goes to the polls on March 17th. Oh yeah, he's also proven to be an obliging handmaiden of the congressional Republicans, as a vital cog in their relentless crusade to hobble President Obama.
Netanyahu and congressional Republicans' attempt to sabotage ongoing US negotiations with Iran amounts to a dangerous game of chicken. Willfully or not, our own home-grown right-wingers have established common cause with Iran's worst saber-rattlers. Fortunately, that country's foreign minister, Javad Zarif, who studied in the US, is savvy enough to know what's going on here on this side of the pond. But still, I find it mind-boggling that Mr. Boehner & Company are so hot to trot to have a roll in the sack with Iran's hardliners.
It's too bad that Bibi was born in Israel; he actually came of age in suburban Philadelphia. (Ever notice how he sometimes swallows part of a syllable with certain words such as water/wuddah?) Otherwise he could move back to the US and throw his hat in the ring as a Republican presidential candidate.
Y'know what? I'd bet he'd get nominated!
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Little Boys Play Dangerous Games: Speaker Boehner's Latest Neener-Neener
Relations between Congress and the White House have been exceptionally prickly in recent times. In particular, the negative vibes between House Speaker John Boehner and President Obama seems palpable. His Orangeness's dislike of the chief executive seemed evident at the State of the Union Address. His unrelentingly sour expression betrayed unhappiness over having to face Obama's backside. The populist tone of the president's message didn't help either.
Speaker Boehner has since taken the liberty of inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu to address the Congress on March 3rd. In the meantime, the Obama administration, under the able stewardship of Secretary of State John Kerry, is conducting delicate negotiations with Iran regarding that nation's nuclear capabilities.
Netanyahu has been the international community's most strident voice, shrieking for military action against Iran. He was also an unabashed supporter of Mitt Romney, who shared the prime minister's perspectives. And yes, Bibi has often displayed contempt for Obama.
Negotiations with Iran have been progressing, albeit slowly. However, within the past few days there's been significant progress. A Netanyahu tirade before the US Congress would not be an invitation to dance with the Iranian mullahs. It could do much to endanger the negotiations, perhaps even kill them.
Some members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have expressed their opposition to hosting Bibi. Good for them, but will there be enough of them to put the kibosh on this
ill-advised event?
It's hard to believe that Boehner's visceral dislike for the president could be so intense that he'd be willing to help launch another war of choice --- with Netanyahu as an especially willing accomplice.
Oh well, boys will be boys!
Speaker Boehner has since taken the liberty of inviting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin "Bibi" Netanyahu to address the Congress on March 3rd. In the meantime, the Obama administration, under the able stewardship of Secretary of State John Kerry, is conducting delicate negotiations with Iran regarding that nation's nuclear capabilities.
Netanyahu has been the international community's most strident voice, shrieking for military action against Iran. He was also an unabashed supporter of Mitt Romney, who shared the prime minister's perspectives. And yes, Bibi has often displayed contempt for Obama.
Negotiations with Iran have been progressing, albeit slowly. However, within the past few days there's been significant progress. A Netanyahu tirade before the US Congress would not be an invitation to dance with the Iranian mullahs. It could do much to endanger the negotiations, perhaps even kill them.
Some members of Congress on both sides of the aisle have expressed their opposition to hosting Bibi. Good for them, but will there be enough of them to put the kibosh on this
ill-advised event?
It's hard to believe that Boehner's visceral dislike for the president could be so intense that he'd be willing to help launch another war of choice --- with Netanyahu as an especially willing accomplice.
Oh well, boys will be boys!
Wednesday, January 14, 2015
He's Running for President, for Pete's Sake! Why? Because He Wants To!
It looks as if Mitt Romney has thrown his hat in the ring once again. Rand Paul, quoting Albert Einstein, implied that The Mittster is insane, to wit: "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting a different result."
Has Mitt really gone insane? Nah, I doubt it. He's running just because "I want to be president." Really! He's just a clueless rich guy, that's all. Does he honestly believe that his snide commentary regarding hard-working wage-earners being "takers" will have been forgotten? That remark was videoed for posterity by a resourceful guy working with a catering service at a lavish fund-raising event hosted by some of his fellow plutocrats. And, oh yeah, "corporations are people." Right?
Consider the roster of other Republicans who are making presidential noises. I mean who are we looking at? Jeb Bush (a so-called "moderate")? It shouldn't be forgotten that he was Florida's governor in 2000, when that state's electoral process was severely, and intentionally compromised. Brother Dubya was installed as our president in its aftermath. Rand Paul? (He'll never be nominated: too dovish. The military-industrial complex would never approve). Rick Santorum? Mike Huckabee? (Misogynists both). Scott Walker? (He alienated his state's public employees, especially teachers). Ted Cruz (The Joe McCarthy wannabe)? Marco Rubio? Bobby Jindal? Rick "Oops" Perry?
2016 should be a cakewalk for the Democratic nominee, right? Not so fast! Many Democrats have demonstrated an uncanny knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The 2014 midterm elections seem to bear that out. Instead of focusing on issues that most voters actually care about such as:
1) Declining wages and widening income inequality
2) Job and retirement insecurity
3) Corporate abuse, especially by Wall Street and the
mega-banks,
many Democratic candidates squandered precious energy and resources by running away from President Obama. (Allison Lundergan Grimes is a good example). Others ran lackluster campaigns: (Mary Burke, Scott Walker's opponent in Wisconsin, the gist of whose campaign was that she was running a successful business; and Martha Coakley in Massachusetts --- just a lousy campaigner and it was her second time 'round).
It's no wonder that so many potential Democratic voters didn't even bother to exercise their franchise. And of course, Harrumphing Old White Dudes always vote.
I dunno. Many political pundits have already anointed Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee. Sure, I'd support her however reluctantly, considering the alternatives. But I'm not convinced that she would ever say or do anything that would antagonize her potential corporate donors. (She once sat on the board at Walmart, one of the nation's most abusive employers). One more reason why the Citizens United Supreme Court decision has been such a stain on our democracy.
I'd love to see a woman elected president. But ideally, I'd rather that that woman be Elizabeth Warren.
Has Mitt really gone insane? Nah, I doubt it. He's running just because "I want to be president." Really! He's just a clueless rich guy, that's all. Does he honestly believe that his snide commentary regarding hard-working wage-earners being "takers" will have been forgotten? That remark was videoed for posterity by a resourceful guy working with a catering service at a lavish fund-raising event hosted by some of his fellow plutocrats. And, oh yeah, "corporations are people." Right?
Consider the roster of other Republicans who are making presidential noises. I mean who are we looking at? Jeb Bush (a so-called "moderate")? It shouldn't be forgotten that he was Florida's governor in 2000, when that state's electoral process was severely, and intentionally compromised. Brother Dubya was installed as our president in its aftermath. Rand Paul? (He'll never be nominated: too dovish. The military-industrial complex would never approve). Rick Santorum? Mike Huckabee? (Misogynists both). Scott Walker? (He alienated his state's public employees, especially teachers). Ted Cruz (The Joe McCarthy wannabe)? Marco Rubio? Bobby Jindal? Rick "Oops" Perry?
2016 should be a cakewalk for the Democratic nominee, right? Not so fast! Many Democrats have demonstrated an uncanny knack for snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The 2014 midterm elections seem to bear that out. Instead of focusing on issues that most voters actually care about such as:
1) Declining wages and widening income inequality
2) Job and retirement insecurity
3) Corporate abuse, especially by Wall Street and the
mega-banks,
many Democratic candidates squandered precious energy and resources by running away from President Obama. (Allison Lundergan Grimes is a good example). Others ran lackluster campaigns: (Mary Burke, Scott Walker's opponent in Wisconsin, the gist of whose campaign was that she was running a successful business; and Martha Coakley in Massachusetts --- just a lousy campaigner and it was her second time 'round).
It's no wonder that so many potential Democratic voters didn't even bother to exercise their franchise. And of course, Harrumphing Old White Dudes always vote.
I dunno. Many political pundits have already anointed Hillary Clinton the Democratic nominee. Sure, I'd support her however reluctantly, considering the alternatives. But I'm not convinced that she would ever say or do anything that would antagonize her potential corporate donors. (She once sat on the board at Walmart, one of the nation's most abusive employers). One more reason why the Citizens United Supreme Court decision has been such a stain on our democracy.
I'd love to see a woman elected president. But ideally, I'd rather that that woman be Elizabeth Warren.
Monday, October 13, 2014
Election Fraud Should be the Issue --- Not Vote Fraud
And believe me, there's a vast difference between the two. In recent decades, the casting of illegal ballots here in the US has been nearly non-existent. No one has provided any meaningful proof to the contrary. Yeah, I know; in ye olden days, up until the mid-20th Century, the notorious Chicago Machine (my home town) had perfected to a fine art the discovery of ballots beneath thousands of tombstones. But that was then.
On the other hand, election fraud is rampant. Many Republican governors and state legislators have created unnecessary photo ID mandates, knowing full well that the voters most impacted would be low-income seniors, minorities, and the young --- the very folks most likely to vote for Democrats.
(Sidebar: The best analysis of election fraud vs. voter fraud that I've read, appeared in a Forbes Magazine article authored by John Lasik, dated November 6, 2012: Voter Fraud: A Massive Anti-Democratic Deception. It can easily be googled and is worth a look. The article is well-reasoned with no political overtones. Incidentally, Forbes is no hotbed of liberalism).
Many state legislatures have gone to great lengths to ensure that citizens from the aforementioned targeted groups are denied their right to the ballot. One of the most common tactics seems to be the requirement of documentation, such as a birth certificate, in order to obtain an ID. (The ID itself is offered free of charge, but obtaining official transcripts, especially birth certificates, can be costly. Wouldn't such an expense amount to a putative poll tax in violation of the 15th Amendment? Just asking).
Disgusting enough. But it gets worse. Possibly the most flagrant case of election fraud gave us the George W. Bush presidency in 2000. He wasn't popularly elected, nor would he have received Florida's electoral votes had the electoral process remained unsullied. Yet that's exactly what happened. (Unlike many Democrats, I refuse to blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore's loss. Making him the goat diverts attention from the real reason that Bush became our head of state: Florida Republicans' hijacking of the electoral process).
A private data collection agency called ChoicePoint was hired by the State of Florida with the stated purpose of purging convicted felons from the voter rolls. (Many non-felons with identical names got deep-sixed as well. Considering the demographics, they were very likely Democratic voters). Coordinating this effort was Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who also happened to be the director of the Florida Bush campaign. (Conflict of interest? Here, have a whiff!). Also worth a note: The state's governor at the time was presidential sibling, Jeb Bush.
The gory details are precisely laid out in an article by a seasoned journalist named Gregory Palast. His piece first appeared in a British publication, The Observer, within days after the US Supreme Court anointed Bush the President of the United States (Bush v Gore). Like Mr. Lasik's Forbes piece, it's very much worth the read. Here the google info: Gregory Palast, A Blacklist Burning For Bush dated December 10th, 2000.
So there you have it, folks. Election fraud can really have consequences. And election fraud is rampant in every state where concerted efforts are being made to suppress the vote and highjack the legislative process. Consider this: Would a Gore administration have launched us on a tragic trajectory in the Middle East in 2003? (Would ISIL even exist?) Or would its economic policies have crashed our economy five years later?
I really don't think so.
On the other hand, election fraud is rampant. Many Republican governors and state legislators have created unnecessary photo ID mandates, knowing full well that the voters most impacted would be low-income seniors, minorities, and the young --- the very folks most likely to vote for Democrats.
(Sidebar: The best analysis of election fraud vs. voter fraud that I've read, appeared in a Forbes Magazine article authored by John Lasik, dated November 6, 2012: Voter Fraud: A Massive Anti-Democratic Deception. It can easily be googled and is worth a look. The article is well-reasoned with no political overtones. Incidentally, Forbes is no hotbed of liberalism).
Many state legislatures have gone to great lengths to ensure that citizens from the aforementioned targeted groups are denied their right to the ballot. One of the most common tactics seems to be the requirement of documentation, such as a birth certificate, in order to obtain an ID. (The ID itself is offered free of charge, but obtaining official transcripts, especially birth certificates, can be costly. Wouldn't such an expense amount to a putative poll tax in violation of the 15th Amendment? Just asking).
Disgusting enough. But it gets worse. Possibly the most flagrant case of election fraud gave us the George W. Bush presidency in 2000. He wasn't popularly elected, nor would he have received Florida's electoral votes had the electoral process remained unsullied. Yet that's exactly what happened. (Unlike many Democrats, I refuse to blame Ralph Nader for Al Gore's loss. Making him the goat diverts attention from the real reason that Bush became our head of state: Florida Republicans' hijacking of the electoral process).
A private data collection agency called ChoicePoint was hired by the State of Florida with the stated purpose of purging convicted felons from the voter rolls. (Many non-felons with identical names got deep-sixed as well. Considering the demographics, they were very likely Democratic voters). Coordinating this effort was Secretary of State Katherine Harris, who also happened to be the director of the Florida Bush campaign. (Conflict of interest? Here, have a whiff!). Also worth a note: The state's governor at the time was presidential sibling, Jeb Bush.
The gory details are precisely laid out in an article by a seasoned journalist named Gregory Palast. His piece first appeared in a British publication, The Observer, within days after the US Supreme Court anointed Bush the President of the United States (Bush v Gore). Like Mr. Lasik's Forbes piece, it's very much worth the read. Here the google info: Gregory Palast, A Blacklist Burning For Bush dated December 10th, 2000.
So there you have it, folks. Election fraud can really have consequences. And election fraud is rampant in every state where concerted efforts are being made to suppress the vote and highjack the legislative process. Consider this: Would a Gore administration have launched us on a tragic trajectory in the Middle East in 2003? (Would ISIL even exist?) Or would its economic policies have crashed our economy five years later?
I really don't think so.
Saturday, August 30, 2014
A Fox News Hothead Anoints Herself a Scholar of Islam
Last week, a Fox News host named Andrea Tantaros decided to offer us a history lesson: a brief lecture premised on her insistence that "Islam is a murderous religion." Citing the videoed execution of American journalist James Foley, she declared that the history of Islam set a precedent for the death of Mr. Foley. "The only thing these people understand is a bullet to the head." (Italics are mine).
The Asian-American Journalists' Association and the Muslim Public Affairs Council have called for an apology from Fox News and Ms. Tantaros. However, she refuses to make any effort to temper, let alone disavow, what amounts to a genocidal diatribe.
Perhaps a history lesson from a more temperate perspective is in order for "Ms. Authority On All Matters Islamic." Hey, Andrea, did you ever read about The Spanish Inquisition? Y'know, when the entirety of Spanish Jewry was expelled from their ancestral land during the late 1400s --- unless they converted to Christianity. (Yep, during that same era, the Native Americans discovered a rude interloper in their midst named Christopher Columbus). Both endeavors appear to have been bankrolled by Queen Isabella and her hubby Ferdinand.
Well, Andrea, the Jews of Spain were presented with three options: A) convert, B) leave the country, or C) be executed --- more likely than not, by some Christian dude under a black hood. Guess who welcomed many of the Jews who chose Option B, while Spain's neighbors to the north and west turned their faces away. It was the Ottomans. Those dreaded Muslims!
Peace!
The Asian-American Journalists' Association and the Muslim Public Affairs Council have called for an apology from Fox News and Ms. Tantaros. However, she refuses to make any effort to temper, let alone disavow, what amounts to a genocidal diatribe.
Perhaps a history lesson from a more temperate perspective is in order for "Ms. Authority On All Matters Islamic." Hey, Andrea, did you ever read about The Spanish Inquisition? Y'know, when the entirety of Spanish Jewry was expelled from their ancestral land during the late 1400s --- unless they converted to Christianity. (Yep, during that same era, the Native Americans discovered a rude interloper in their midst named Christopher Columbus). Both endeavors appear to have been bankrolled by Queen Isabella and her hubby Ferdinand.
Well, Andrea, the Jews of Spain were presented with three options: A) convert, B) leave the country, or C) be executed --- more likely than not, by some Christian dude under a black hood. Guess who welcomed many of the Jews who chose Option B, while Spain's neighbors to the north and west turned their faces away. It was the Ottomans. Those dreaded Muslims!
Peace!
Monday, July 28, 2014
Hamas & the Israeli Leadership: Two Atrocious Actors --- But Only One Has All the Cards.
As I write, the carnage in Gaza continues unrelentingly. Over 1,000 lives have now been lost during the 20-plus days of military action by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF). According to local first responders, at least 80 percent of those fatalities have been civilians, including women and children. Tragically, the hard-liners have been holding tightly to the reins of power on both sides of the border.
Hamas, elected by a comfortable margin in 2006, had since become deeply unpopular among Gazans, with an approval rating of 15%. (Source: an unnamed poll cited in an article that appeared in The Guardian with the byline of Ian Black, a Tel Aviv correspondent, dated 5/2/14, predating Israel's latest attacks ). In the wake of the assault on Gaza, Hamas has regained widespread support, according to local journalists. Should we be surprised? Incidentally, Hamas's popularity was initially cultivated, not by the party's toxic view of Israel, but by dint of an array of social programs that helped relieve the plight of many poverty-stricken Gazans. In light of their electoral triumph and its leaders' bellicose declarations, Israeli officials responded by orchestrating an IDF lockdown of the entire Gaza Strip, creating a land of 1.8 million virtual prisoners. Eight years later, it's still in place. Nevertheless, the vast majority of these folks oppose the use of violence: nearly 80 percent, according to the previously cited poll.
In the meantime, a political impasse between the hard-line Hamas and the equally unyielding coalition of right-wing Israeli parties controlling the Knesset prevails. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies insist that Hamas recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Is this a reasonable expectation, given that land's previous history as the nation of Palestine? I don't know. Perhaps one should ask the Palestinians who were dispossessed to make way for the freshly minted State of Israel. (Disclosure: As a secular Jew myself, I'm well aware of our historical longing for a homeland and the advent of Zionism with the iron-bound determination to fulfill that dream, especially in the wake of the Holocaust. Israel was the realization of that dream, but not without a terrible human cost).
Meanwhile, Israel's leadership continues to green-light expansion of the West Bank settlements despite opposition to this controversial policy among the majority of their own citizens. As I indicated in the subject line, Israel has all the cards: The military and technological might as well as the unqualified support of the planet's only super-power. What more could they ask?
Nobody wants to have to live under a constant state of siege, whether in Israel or in Gaza. However, the vast majority of the Hamas rockets lobbed at Israel have been successfully neutralized by the IDF's Iron Dome defense system --- largely financed by the United States. I'm glad that it exists; it has undoubtedly saved countless lives. But the Gazans have no such protection.
I'd like nothing better than to see the Israelis and the Palestinians survive and thrive, be it in one state or two. But Israel holds all the cards. So what is there for them to lose by making the first move? For a start, why not make a concerted effort to do something that the majority of Israelis support: dismantling the West Bank settlements, once and for all.
Hamas, elected by a comfortable margin in 2006, had since become deeply unpopular among Gazans, with an approval rating of 15%. (Source: an unnamed poll cited in an article that appeared in The Guardian with the byline of Ian Black, a Tel Aviv correspondent, dated 5/2/14, predating Israel's latest attacks ). In the wake of the assault on Gaza, Hamas has regained widespread support, according to local journalists. Should we be surprised? Incidentally, Hamas's popularity was initially cultivated, not by the party's toxic view of Israel, but by dint of an array of social programs that helped relieve the plight of many poverty-stricken Gazans. In light of their electoral triumph and its leaders' bellicose declarations, Israeli officials responded by orchestrating an IDF lockdown of the entire Gaza Strip, creating a land of 1.8 million virtual prisoners. Eight years later, it's still in place. Nevertheless, the vast majority of these folks oppose the use of violence: nearly 80 percent, according to the previously cited poll.
In the meantime, a political impasse between the hard-line Hamas and the equally unyielding coalition of right-wing Israeli parties controlling the Knesset prevails. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his allies insist that Hamas recognize Israel as a Jewish state. Is this a reasonable expectation, given that land's previous history as the nation of Palestine? I don't know. Perhaps one should ask the Palestinians who were dispossessed to make way for the freshly minted State of Israel. (Disclosure: As a secular Jew myself, I'm well aware of our historical longing for a homeland and the advent of Zionism with the iron-bound determination to fulfill that dream, especially in the wake of the Holocaust. Israel was the realization of that dream, but not without a terrible human cost).
Meanwhile, Israel's leadership continues to green-light expansion of the West Bank settlements despite opposition to this controversial policy among the majority of their own citizens. As I indicated in the subject line, Israel has all the cards: The military and technological might as well as the unqualified support of the planet's only super-power. What more could they ask?
Nobody wants to have to live under a constant state of siege, whether in Israel or in Gaza. However, the vast majority of the Hamas rockets lobbed at Israel have been successfully neutralized by the IDF's Iron Dome defense system --- largely financed by the United States. I'm glad that it exists; it has undoubtedly saved countless lives. But the Gazans have no such protection.
I'd like nothing better than to see the Israelis and the Palestinians survive and thrive, be it in one state or two. But Israel holds all the cards. So what is there for them to lose by making the first move? For a start, why not make a concerted effort to do something that the majority of Israelis support: dismantling the West Bank settlements, once and for all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)