Mind boggling as it is, another Israeli ceasefire on the Hamas-ruled Gaza Strip has gone into effect. Previous ceasefires have been punctuated by regular attacks from Hamas and have given Hamas a chance to re-group and re-arm. This one will be no different. Israel’s intermittent periods of capitulation and “military restraint” continue to teach Hamas that there are no real consequences to their actions. Furthermore, the Palestinian moderates have zero chance of ruling Gaza as long as Hamas can convince the people that they are gaining ground and winning concessions.
And indeed, they are. The Egyptian-brokered ceasefire places no limitations on Hamas activities in Gaza (and even if it did, there is no way to monitor them). Hamas is free to stockpile arms, plant mines, dig tunnels, and build bunkers. By the end of the ceasefire, Gaza will be fully armed and ready to do battle even more effectively than before. Another few such ceasefires and Hamas will not only be equipped to hold sway over Gaza indefinitely but could also make an attempt at invading parts of Israel.
What is Israel thinking, and why is the White House expressing hopeful optimism about this latest ceasefire? It borders on insanity.
Showing posts with label International. Show all posts
Showing posts with label International. Show all posts
20 June 2008
17 June 2008
The Strange Mathematics of Oil
To date, I agree with every word and/or admire every question that comes out of Victor Davis Hanson's keyboard. Here is a verbatim transcript from one of his posts on The Corner yesterday:
1/2 a million barrels, yes -- 1 million, no?
I am confused: for years we were told that the projected 1 million barrels per day from ANWR would be simply too small to make much of a difference given our 20 million some barrel a day appetite — and therefore not worth the environmental risk. Now we wait in tense anticipation for a Saudi willingness to pump an extra 1/2 million per day (from where and how we apparently simply don't care), which we hope will send a message that world supply and demand might be in better sync to cut the feet out from under speculators. So how can 500,000 barrels now do what a million once could not?
1/2 a million barrels, yes -- 1 million, no?
I am confused: for years we were told that the projected 1 million barrels per day from ANWR would be simply too small to make much of a difference given our 20 million some barrel a day appetite — and therefore not worth the environmental risk. Now we wait in tense anticipation for a Saudi willingness to pump an extra 1/2 million per day (from where and how we apparently simply don't care), which we hope will send a message that world supply and demand might be in better sync to cut the feet out from under speculators. So how can 500,000 barrels now do what a million once could not?
16 June 2008
Viva Ireland!
It is worth nothing that Ireland has voted to reject the Lisbon Treaty, the replacement document for the previously rejected EU Constitution by which the EU is trying to achieve full status as a sovereign entity. Against the urgings of their prime minister, their cabinet, the majority of the business sector, the Catholic church, and the media, the Irish people have refused to water down their national identity or give up sovereignty in favor of more bureacuracy and oversight of/from the EU.
The reaction of the EU to Ireland's vote was telling. The EU President called a press conference and made vague threats. Other EU leaders spoke openly of various legal remedies that will enable them to either ignore the Irish vote or force Ireland to vote again (and again...until they accept the Lisbon Treaty). Instead of respecting the electoral results in Ireland or engaging in a renewed campaign to change the hearts and minds of the Irish, the EU is looking to subvert and/or overpower. So much for their "democratic ideals."
The reaction of the EU to Ireland's vote was telling. The EU President called a press conference and made vague threats. Other EU leaders spoke openly of various legal remedies that will enable them to either ignore the Irish vote or force Ireland to vote again (and again...until they accept the Lisbon Treaty). Instead of respecting the electoral results in Ireland or engaging in a renewed campaign to change the hearts and minds of the Irish, the EU is looking to subvert and/or overpower. So much for their "democratic ideals."
07 June 2008
Sketchy Judgment
It's being widely blogged this weekend that 9/11 plotter Khalied Mohammed was allowed to glance over a courtroom drawing of himself and that military prosecutors caved to his complaints that his nose was drawn too big. According to a story in the New York Post, the courtroom artist was then given additional time to "properly" depict the terrorist. A Pentagon spokesman said, "It shows the lengths we go to take their desires into consideration."
And we are proud of this because...?
And we are proud of this because...?
05 June 2008
The Islamic Law of Apostasy: Murder by Any Other Name
In re: to my recent post on missionaries and Muslims converting to Christianity in the U.K. and elsewhere, Anne of Idaho writes in and asks, "Who is going to be responsible for Islam’s attitude about conversion, i.e., killing apostates?"
Answer: When Muslims choose to murder Muslims who have denounced Islam, the responsible parties are the murderers and no one else...except perhaps the false prophets and teachers who say "believe in Islam, or die." We must not hide ourselves in the hope that the hatred and terror of Islam will pass us by, and we need not assume responsibility for the heinous acts of others.
My encouragement to all Christians - whether missionaries, Muslim converts, or ordinary citizens - is to have the courage to seek, believe, and speak the truth about God whenever and wherever possible. If there is a price for believing and sharing God's truth and grace, whether Islamic enmity or even our earthly lives, then let us gladly pay it. It doesn't matter whether our listener is Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or pagan, and it doesn't matter on what nation's soil we stand. In the grand scheme of things, we each have an audience of One. We must open our hearts and live with courage and joy. We must live as if death is already defeated. And so it Is.
Murderers cannot kill us; they can only send us Home.
Answer: When Muslims choose to murder Muslims who have denounced Islam, the responsible parties are the murderers and no one else...except perhaps the false prophets and teachers who say "believe in Islam, or die." We must not hide ourselves in the hope that the hatred and terror of Islam will pass us by, and we need not assume responsibility for the heinous acts of others.
My encouragement to all Christians - whether missionaries, Muslim converts, or ordinary citizens - is to have the courage to seek, believe, and speak the truth about God whenever and wherever possible. If there is a price for believing and sharing God's truth and grace, whether Islamic enmity or even our earthly lives, then let us gladly pay it. It doesn't matter whether our listener is Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or pagan, and it doesn't matter on what nation's soil we stand. In the grand scheme of things, we each have an audience of One. We must open our hearts and live with courage and joy. We must live as if death is already defeated. And so it Is.
Murderers cannot kill us; they can only send us Home.
CNS News: Anglican Church Aims to Spread Gospel to UK Muslims
In re: to my "Evangelism: The New Hate Crime" post, Kevin McCandless @ CNSNews.com (London) reports that with more and more Britons embracing Islam, the Church of England is launching a campaign aimed at converting Muslims to Christianity. At the church's General Synod this coming July, clergy and lay members will consider a motion calling for a recognition of the "uniqueness of Christ" and urging the church to proclaim "the gospel of salvation through Christ alone."
Paul Eddy, the priest introducing the motion, said he fears that the Anglican Church has "watered down its faith" in recent years. Where many Muslims are outspoken and publicly robust in their faith, he said the church of England has "lost its nerve." Among other measures, Eddy says he wants to see priests receive training in evangelization. Eddy has already secured support from a number of synod members, including Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali, a Pakistan-born clergyman has recently repeated earlier warnings that the decline of Christianity has weakened Britain and led to many neighborhoods becoming "no-go areas" for non-Muslims.
Paul Eddy, the priest introducing the motion, said he fears that the Anglican Church has "watered down its faith" in recent years. Where many Muslims are outspoken and publicly robust in their faith, he said the church of England has "lost its nerve." Among other measures, Eddy says he wants to see priests receive training in evangelization. Eddy has already secured support from a number of synod members, including Bishop of Rochester Michael Nazir-Ali, a Pakistan-born clergyman has recently repeated earlier warnings that the decline of Christianity has weakened Britain and led to many neighborhoods becoming "no-go areas" for non-Muslims.
30 May 2008
Homeland Security Under-Secretary Wants War Terminology Tweaked
Just when we thought the pious worship of Political Correctness couldn’t get any sillier, today’s Financial Times reports that a high ranking Homeland Security official wants us to stop using the phrase “War on Terror” because it’s being “interpreted in the Muslim world as a war on Islam.” The suggestion surfaced in two memos including one from the National Counterterrorism Center entitled “Words that Work and Words That Don’t.” One wonders who at the NCC hemorraged their cerebrum thinking up that dazzling heading? The other erudite memo, issued by the Department of Homeland Security, stated, “The terminology the U.S. government uses should convey the magnitude of the threat we face, but also avoid inflating the religious bases and glamorous appeal of the extremists’ ideology.”
Question: Huh???
Can someone explain to me why the Muslim world is now equating the word terror with Islam after years of repeatedly and indignantly claiming that their religion is one of peace? Haven't we all been told ad nauseum that there's a huge difference between the religion of Islam and the fanatacism of terrorists? How can the phrase “war on terror” do anything to “inflate” the peace-loving Muslim religious base if the two are truly as far removed from one another as the East from the West…? And why is the Department of Homeland Security happily going along with all this blather without so much as a Whoa Nellie?
This protest reminds me a little of the Far Lefties who ranted and raved about President Bush calling them “appeasers” in his recent speech to Israel’s Parliament…when Bush was not in fact talking about them. Their misinterpretation and half-hysterical remonstrations revealed that they think of themselves as that dirtiest of modern wartime words: appeasers. One suspects this “Terror = Islam” objection is the same sort of cognitive math. We’re not saying the war on terror is a war on Islam, but the Muslim world is hearing it – because they already know the two often equate.
In any case, the United Muslims Against Accuracy seem to have some fans here in the America. A few international policy experts have suggested that we should re-name the challenge of our times as “A Global Struggle for Security and Progress.” Noble sounding, but vague. It also comes a bit too close for comfort to the enthusiastic slogans of “progress” and “modernism” espoused by Communist China and other totalitarian regimes. Not exactly the banner we want to be waving as we march around the world.
Additionally, the slogan falls short because we are largely engaged in a global struggle between – and not of – nations. Anyone who’s been paying attention for more than five minutes knows we can’t even agree on what progress should look like, nevermind how to team up and bring it about. The un-United Nations ruminates endlessly over what should be done on a thousand fronts as they grapple with the cold, hard fact that America’s “security and progress” is the nightmare of many world leaders. To pretend we are a part of a unified global community floating in a happy boat of common values and progressive agendas is to depart from the realms of PC politics and sail toward the sandy white shores of LaLa Land.
As I circle back on the moniker “war on terror,” allow me to suggest this snappy phrase for the next round of NCC and DHS memos: “War On Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime Who So Much As Breathes In the Direction of American Lives, Limbs, Liberties, and Lands”
That should do very nicely, now and forever. Semper Fi!
Question: Huh???
Can someone explain to me why the Muslim world is now equating the word terror with Islam after years of repeatedly and indignantly claiming that their religion is one of peace? Haven't we all been told ad nauseum that there's a huge difference between the religion of Islam and the fanatacism of terrorists? How can the phrase “war on terror” do anything to “inflate” the peace-loving Muslim religious base if the two are truly as far removed from one another as the East from the West…? And why is the Department of Homeland Security happily going along with all this blather without so much as a Whoa Nellie?
This protest reminds me a little of the Far Lefties who ranted and raved about President Bush calling them “appeasers” in his recent speech to Israel’s Parliament…when Bush was not in fact talking about them. Their misinterpretation and half-hysterical remonstrations revealed that they think of themselves as that dirtiest of modern wartime words: appeasers. One suspects this “Terror = Islam” objection is the same sort of cognitive math. We’re not saying the war on terror is a war on Islam, but the Muslim world is hearing it – because they already know the two often equate.
In any case, the United Muslims Against Accuracy seem to have some fans here in the America. A few international policy experts have suggested that we should re-name the challenge of our times as “A Global Struggle for Security and Progress.” Noble sounding, but vague. It also comes a bit too close for comfort to the enthusiastic slogans of “progress” and “modernism” espoused by Communist China and other totalitarian regimes. Not exactly the banner we want to be waving as we march around the world.
Additionally, the slogan falls short because we are largely engaged in a global struggle between – and not of – nations. Anyone who’s been paying attention for more than five minutes knows we can’t even agree on what progress should look like, nevermind how to team up and bring it about. The un-United Nations ruminates endlessly over what should be done on a thousand fronts as they grapple with the cold, hard fact that America’s “security and progress” is the nightmare of many world leaders. To pretend we are a part of a unified global community floating in a happy boat of common values and progressive agendas is to depart from the realms of PC politics and sail toward the sandy white shores of LaLa Land.
As I circle back on the moniker “war on terror,” allow me to suggest this snappy phrase for the next round of NCC and DHS memos: “War On Anyone, Anywhere, Anytime Who So Much As Breathes In the Direction of American Lives, Limbs, Liberties, and Lands”
That should do very nicely, now and forever. Semper Fi!
28 May 2008
What Floats McCain's Boat
Chuck Muth’s YuccaFacts has good fun today. He first quotes John McCain on Yucca Mountain in a speech in Denver yesterday:
“I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials. It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.”
Muth then reminds us that a primary argument of Yucca Repository opponents has been Transportation and quips, Does the term “mobile Chernobyl” ring any bells?” Now, enter McCain with this grand Plan for overseas storage. Muth poses the obvious question: “How is it going to get there?” and wonders how consistent opposers will be in re: to their objections when the destination is no longer Yucca – nor indeed, anywhere in the good old U.S. of A.
My questions are: Which lucky nation does McCain have in mind for the storage site? Who will enthusiastically raise their hand in favor of becoming the world’s nuclear septic tank? And how does Mr. GreenJeans – the guy who now sells organic t-shirts and mugs on his website and “uncategorically opposes” building an oil refinery and pipeline in rural Alaska so a few caribou can freely enjoy an unfettered sunset – justify suggesting floating boatloads of radioactive waste in and out of the world’s major ports and population centers?
“I would seek to establish an international repository for spent nuclear fuel that could collect and safely store materials overseas that might otherwise be reprocessed to acquire bomb-grade materials. It is even possible that such an international center could make it unnecessary to open the proposed spent nuclear fuel storage facility at Yucca Mountain in Nevada.”
Muth then reminds us that a primary argument of Yucca Repository opponents has been Transportation and quips, Does the term “mobile Chernobyl” ring any bells?” Now, enter McCain with this grand Plan for overseas storage. Muth poses the obvious question: “How is it going to get there?” and wonders how consistent opposers will be in re: to their objections when the destination is no longer Yucca – nor indeed, anywhere in the good old U.S. of A.
My questions are: Which lucky nation does McCain have in mind for the storage site? Who will enthusiastically raise their hand in favor of becoming the world’s nuclear septic tank? And how does Mr. GreenJeans – the guy who now sells organic t-shirts and mugs on his website and “uncategorically opposes” building an oil refinery and pipeline in rural Alaska so a few caribou can freely enjoy an unfettered sunset – justify suggesting floating boatloads of radioactive waste in and out of the world’s major ports and population centers?
20 May 2008
U.S. Government: Interfering Busybody or Protector and Stablizer?
Anne of Idaho writes:
It should be possible to remove ourselves from the habit of interfering in the internal policies of other nations while not giving up our role as protector and stabilizer of general areas of commerce in the world. Think of it this way: police action can be limited to protecting citizens in the streets (i.e., in public) but not invading homes and businesses (with or without warrants).
Our federal domestic policy of interfering in the minutest aspects of personal life (what we can eat, say, teach) is mirrored in our concomitant policy overseas of thinking we have the right to oversee the lives of foreigners.
A good parent knows how to maintain order without stifling freedom of thought and action. A “good nation” can and should do the same.
But a nation is not an entity in and of itself. It is a composite of millions of people of all ages and beliefs and agendas. Our ability to turn “nation” into an abstract whole has historically been of questionable service to the pursuit of peace and happiness. But the greater error will be in the abstract concept of “one world.”
People is plural.
Agree on all points.
Question: What if we learn that foreign terrorists are plotting and planning in private homes or the back rooms of private businesses of their nations? Do we have the "right" (or obligation) - with or without state or legal authorization - to disturb them and try to prevent their crimes before they hit the streets?
Question expanded to our dealings with nations: What if we learn that weapons are being developed and/or terrorists and murderers are being trained and motivated in the caves and compounds of certain countries? Do we attempt to preempt? Or do we wait for the crimes to be committed, and then try to track down the perpetrators, and hope that our success in doing so will prevent other crimes?
Should the liberty of a person, group, or nation be allowed (have the right to) exist right up until a crime is committed? Or is one's liberty subject to limitation as soon as one begins actively planning to infringe upon the liberty of another?
It should be possible to remove ourselves from the habit of interfering in the internal policies of other nations while not giving up our role as protector and stabilizer of general areas of commerce in the world. Think of it this way: police action can be limited to protecting citizens in the streets (i.e., in public) but not invading homes and businesses (with or without warrants).
Our federal domestic policy of interfering in the minutest aspects of personal life (what we can eat, say, teach) is mirrored in our concomitant policy overseas of thinking we have the right to oversee the lives of foreigners.
A good parent knows how to maintain order without stifling freedom of thought and action. A “good nation” can and should do the same.
But a nation is not an entity in and of itself. It is a composite of millions of people of all ages and beliefs and agendas. Our ability to turn “nation” into an abstract whole has historically been of questionable service to the pursuit of peace and happiness. But the greater error will be in the abstract concept of “one world.”
People is plural.
Agree on all points.
Question: What if we learn that foreign terrorists are plotting and planning in private homes or the back rooms of private businesses of their nations? Do we have the "right" (or obligation) - with or without state or legal authorization - to disturb them and try to prevent their crimes before they hit the streets?
Question expanded to our dealings with nations: What if we learn that weapons are being developed and/or terrorists and murderers are being trained and motivated in the caves and compounds of certain countries? Do we attempt to preempt? Or do we wait for the crimes to be committed, and then try to track down the perpetrators, and hope that our success in doing so will prevent other crimes?
Should the liberty of a person, group, or nation be allowed (have the right to) exist right up until a crime is committed? Or is one's liberty subject to limitation as soon as one begins actively planning to infringe upon the liberty of another?
19 May 2008
Who Else Would Do It? Who Else Could?
In re: to my Bob Barr/Libertarian post, Anne of Idaho writes:
People lose sight of the fact that our military strength does more than protect the USA . We patrol the waters in the Mediterranean in order to keep the region stable so that all countries can benefit from the peaceful movement of oil and other goods. Our presence in many areas keeps traditional foes restrained. And our military strength enables other countries (think EU) to have tiny military budgets. They know we are there. What would they do if we weren’t?
They would be royally screwed, me-thinks. Not that we say these things out loud. It wouldn't be politically correct to point out the world's dependency on us, nor to state that there is no other nation on earth who does so much, for so many, with so little thanks - or reciprocity. But, as Ronald Reagan once said, "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit."
Getting back to how all this relates to Libertarianism, though, I still ask: what is the logical-philosophical justification for the party's Isolationist ideas? I need a Libertarian to tell me.
People lose sight of the fact that our military strength does more than protect the USA . We patrol the waters in the Mediterranean in order to keep the region stable so that all countries can benefit from the peaceful movement of oil and other goods. Our presence in many areas keeps traditional foes restrained. And our military strength enables other countries (think EU) to have tiny military budgets. They know we are there. What would they do if we weren’t?
They would be royally screwed, me-thinks. Not that we say these things out loud. It wouldn't be politically correct to point out the world's dependency on us, nor to state that there is no other nation on earth who does so much, for so many, with so little thanks - or reciprocity. But, as Ronald Reagan once said, "It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit."
Getting back to how all this relates to Libertarianism, though, I still ask: what is the logical-philosophical justification for the party's Isolationist ideas? I need a Libertarian to tell me.
16 May 2008
More Knesset Snippets
I’ve seen and heard lots of snippets of Bush’s speech yesterday to the Israeli Knesset, the most “controversial” of which are now on Talk Tadio and all over the Blogosphere. If you want to read the whole transcript (as I did), you can find it here on NewsBusters.
Here are a few blurbs from the speech (in italics) along with my comments:
We gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence, founded on the "natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate." What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David — a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael.
Like our own Founding Fathers, Gen-Gurion and friends found certain truths to be self-evident and pushed through to the establishment of a new and democratic nation. The birth of the state of Israel in 1968 resonated with Americans because it reminded us of our own history.
Eleven minutes later, on the orders of President Harry Truman, the United States was proud to be the first nation to recognize Israel's independence. And on this landmark anniversary, America is proud to be Israel's closest ally and best friend in the world.
And so, we became BFFs.
The alliance between our governments is unbreakable...
I hope W is right, but I wonder. Obama’s been hinting around that under his leadership we'll be having fewer slumber parties with Israel and may be catching an occasional dinner and a movie with Amajinadad. If he/we continue to delude ourselves into thinking that diplomacy will work with neo-fascist, murderous Islamic despots, and if our nation's citizenry continues to devolve away from the roots of our Judeo-Christian faith, will we really remain passionate about being friends with the Jewish state? Or will the friendship fizzle out?
We believe in the matchless value of every man, woman and child. So we insist that the people of Israel have the right to a decent, normal and peaceful life, just like the citizens of every other nation. We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world.
It is indeed outrageous that the U.N. so disproportionately chastises Israel. Just one more reason to question the moral and political legitimacy of the U.N.
....the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.
There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.
Not sure “natural” is the best word for the tendency to ignore, explain, justify, or defend wrongdoing. Intentions may indeed be good, but the proverbial road to hell-on-earth is paved with too great a tolerance for too many wrongs.
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it.
Words can be powerful, but people can believe in their ability to influence through rhetoric far too much. Jimmy Carter's recent meeting with Hamas was just the most recent example of such Hubris. There are many political occasions that call for talking, reasoning, and negotiating; there are some that do not.
We must confront the moral relativism that views all forms of government as equally acceptable and thereby consigns whole societies to slavery. Above all, we must have faith in our values and ourselves and confidently pursue the expansion of liberty as the path to a peaceful future.
All men are created equal; all governments are not. Arguments that we cannot and should not try to force democracy upon the nations of the world are valid. Democracy, by its very nature, must be conceived and carried in the minds of common men. Liberty must be desired, even at the cost of one's own life. The fear of death must be overcome by the will to live freely and well . The birth of a republic follows long, difficult labor.
Here are a few blurbs from the speech (in italics) along with my comments:
We gather to mark a momentous occasion. Sixty years ago in Tel Aviv, David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israel's independence, founded on the "natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate." What followed was more than the establishment of a new country. It was the redemption of an ancient promise given to Abraham and Moses and David — a homeland for the chosen people Eretz Yisrael.
Like our own Founding Fathers, Gen-Gurion and friends found certain truths to be self-evident and pushed through to the establishment of a new and democratic nation. The birth of the state of Israel in 1968 resonated with Americans because it reminded us of our own history.
Eleven minutes later, on the orders of President Harry Truman, the United States was proud to be the first nation to recognize Israel's independence. And on this landmark anniversary, America is proud to be Israel's closest ally and best friend in the world.
And so, we became BFFs.
The alliance between our governments is unbreakable...
I hope W is right, but I wonder. Obama’s been hinting around that under his leadership we'll be having fewer slumber parties with Israel and may be catching an occasional dinner and a movie with Amajinadad. If he/we continue to delude ourselves into thinking that diplomacy will work with neo-fascist, murderous Islamic despots, and if our nation's citizenry continues to devolve away from the roots of our Judeo-Christian faith, will we really remain passionate about being friends with the Jewish state? Or will the friendship fizzle out?
We believe in the matchless value of every man, woman and child. So we insist that the people of Israel have the right to a decent, normal and peaceful life, just like the citizens of every other nation. We believe that democracy is the only way to ensure human rights. So we consider it a source of shame that the United Nations routinely passes more human rights resolutions against the freest democracy in the Middle East than any other nation in the world.
It is indeed outrageous that the U.N. so disproportionately chastises Israel. Just one more reason to question the moral and political legitimacy of the U.N.
....the founding charter of Hamas calls for the "elimination" of Israel. And that is why the followers of Hezbollah chant "Death to Israel, Death to America!" That is why Osama bin Laden teaches that "the killing of Jews and Americans is one of the biggest duties." And that is why the president of Iran dreams of returning the Middle East to the Middle Ages and calls for Israel to be wiped off the map.
There are good and decent people who cannot fathom the darkness in these men and try to explain away their words. It's natural, but it is deadly wrong. As witnesses to evil in the past, we carry a solemn responsibility to take these words seriously. Jews and Americans have seen the consequences of disregarding the words of leaders who espouse hatred. And that is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.
Not sure “natural” is the best word for the tendency to ignore, explain, justify, or defend wrongdoing. Intentions may indeed be good, but the proverbial road to hell-on-earth is paved with too great a tolerance for too many wrongs.
Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals, as if some ingenious argument will persuade them they have been wrong all along. We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared: "Lord, if I could only have talked to Hitler, all this might have been avoided." We have an obligation to call this what it is — the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history.Some people suggest if the United States would just break ties with Israel, all our problems in the Middle East would go away. This is a tired argument that buys into the propaganda of the enemies of peace, and America utterly rejects it.
Words can be powerful, but people can believe in their ability to influence through rhetoric far too much. Jimmy Carter's recent meeting with Hamas was just the most recent example of such Hubris. There are many political occasions that call for talking, reasoning, and negotiating; there are some that do not.
We must confront the moral relativism that views all forms of government as equally acceptable and thereby consigns whole societies to slavery. Above all, we must have faith in our values and ourselves and confidently pursue the expansion of liberty as the path to a peaceful future.
All men are created equal; all governments are not. Arguments that we cannot and should not try to force democracy upon the nations of the world are valid. Democracy, by its very nature, must be conceived and carried in the minds of common men. Liberty must be desired, even at the cost of one's own life. The fear of death must be overcome by the will to live freely and well . The birth of a republic follows long, difficult labor.
10 May 2008
Hi Ho the Derrio, A-Voting We Shall Go
Reuters reported that despite the devastation of the cyclone on May 2nd, Myanmar's military government still proceeded with elections for a military-drafted "constitution" legitimizing its rule. Voters in areas not affected by the cyclone were under government pressure to show up and vote "yes" while their dead fellow citizens floated in the rivers and deltas and the survivors waited in vain for aid. The government's propaganda blitz featured state-run TV adds warning of "foreign interference" and cheerful actresses singing "Let's go voting" and "Come along for voting" to a snappy disco beat.
Apparently voting in cyclone-devastated areas has been postponed for two weeks. I'm sure the despondent, starving family members of Myanmar's 100,000+ dead are deeply appreciative of the government-issued rain check.
Apparently voting in cyclone-devastated areas has been postponed for two weeks. I'm sure the despondent, starving family members of Myanmar's 100,000+ dead are deeply appreciative of the government-issued rain check.
04 May 2008
03 May 2008
When Accused in the U.S., File a Libel Suit...in England?
Kevin Williamson @ the Media Blog @ NRO had a good blog post yesterday re: "libel tourism," the practice of filing libel suits in jurisdictions that are more favorable to the complaintant. Williams cites recent instances in which a billionaire Saudi banker, Khalid bin Mahfouz, has filed libel suits in Great Britain against a number of books by U.S. authors. The books are controversial and are primarly about Islamo-fascism and/or the funding of Islamic terrorists; most of them link Mahfouz with terrorism either directly or indirectly.
Williamson's post also referenced a recent situation in New Hampshire and is encouraging the enactment of laws protecting writers from "meritless prosecutions by phony "human rights" commissions abroad."
Williamson's post also referenced a recent situation in New Hampshire and is encouraging the enactment of laws protecting writers from "meritless prosecutions by phony "human rights" commissions abroad."
24 April 2008
And Another Thing
On the subject of Jimmy Carter again with a kill-two-birds Bonus (i.e. Obama's foolishness on the same subject). Initially, Obama said Carter’s meet-up with Hamas was none of his business. Then a spokesman for Obama said he did "not agree with President Carter's decision to go forward with this meeting because he does not support negotations with Hamas until they renounce terrorism, recognized Israel's right to exist, and abide by past agreements." (As quoted in the Washington Post) But hasn't Obama said he wishes to meet with Ahmadinejad, whose position is identical to that of Hamas?
21 April 2008
Carter's Political Science Grade: "F"
After meeting with Hamas, former President Carter told CNN that the group promised not to undermine [Palestinian President Mahmoud] Abbas' efforts to reach a peace deal with Israel, providing the Palestinian people approved it in a referendum. However, CNN later reported that Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, said Carter's statements "do not mean that Hamas is going to accept the result of the referendum." Clearly, either Hamas lied to Carter – or Carter misunderstood or misrepresented what was said when they met. Either way, Carter’s effort to facilitate and “provide communications between people who won’t communicate with each other” has failed.
Like many, I believe Carter is well-intentioned and sincere in his desire to seek peace. Unfortunately, people can be quite sincere and quite wrong at the same time. Sincerity requires an earnest mind but does not necessitate either knowledge or wisdom. Lacking the latter, Jimmy Carter is learning that Experience is a hard teacher: she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards.
Like many, I believe Carter is well-intentioned and sincere in his desire to seek peace. Unfortunately, people can be quite sincere and quite wrong at the same time. Sincerity requires an earnest mind but does not necessitate either knowledge or wisdom. Lacking the latter, Jimmy Carter is learning that Experience is a hard teacher: she gives the test first, the lesson afterwards.
18 April 2008
The Icing On My Cannoli
I love most everything Italian, starting with (but not limited to) the food and wine, the captivating history, the culturally-rich cities, the breathtaking landscapes, and of course the shoes. Having never been to the actual country, it’s primarily through books, photographs, documentaries, Giada and Lidia on Food Network, and the sale racks at Macy’s that this steamy love affair has blossomed. Now Italy has offered me a new and exciting enticement – one I hope will last until we can finally meet.
Silvio Berlusconi and his conservative party “People of Freedom” have won a surprising and decisive victory in Italy’s recent general election. Hated by the left-leaning European elite, Berlusconi waged a campaign that by all accounts was the hardest fought since Italy’s liberation from Fascist rule in 1944. He spoke often of family values, personal responsibility, hard work, discipline, individual generosity, market-based capitalism, and a foreign policy based on a strategy of peace-through-strength. (Anyone else think he sounds like an Italian version of Ronald Reagan…?) In contrast, his rival, the former mayor of Rome and leader of the New Democratic Party, pounded the podium for a social-democratic system with the State as Supreme Distributor of wealth and welfare. Not surprisingly, on international issues, the Demotalian party platform proposed a policy of "dialogue and accommodation." (Translation: more fruitless Talks and continued Tolerance for international atrocities.) Berlusconi's message was pro-American; his opponent called for greater European solidarity. Berlusconi promised to strengthen transatlantic relations; his challenger clucked away with the usual anti-American and anti-hawk squawking.
So what did the voters think? In the biggest win Ever for an Italian political coalition, Berlusconi's party won 47 percent of the votes (340 seats in the national assembly) and finished with a parliamentary majority of 101 seats, an Italian record. On the proverbial heel of wins by the French conservatives in both the presidential and parliamentary elections, the Italian right's decisive win may be part of a new and growing European trend. Of course, it’s much too soon to say whether the Berlusconi-Sarovsky victories are really the beginning of change. But for now, it’s spring, the birds are singing, and Italy’s whispering sweet nothings in my ear.
Silvio Berlusconi and his conservative party “People of Freedom” have won a surprising and decisive victory in Italy’s recent general election. Hated by the left-leaning European elite, Berlusconi waged a campaign that by all accounts was the hardest fought since Italy’s liberation from Fascist rule in 1944. He spoke often of family values, personal responsibility, hard work, discipline, individual generosity, market-based capitalism, and a foreign policy based on a strategy of peace-through-strength. (Anyone else think he sounds like an Italian version of Ronald Reagan…?) In contrast, his rival, the former mayor of Rome and leader of the New Democratic Party, pounded the podium for a social-democratic system with the State as Supreme Distributor of wealth and welfare. Not surprisingly, on international issues, the Demotalian party platform proposed a policy of "dialogue and accommodation." (Translation: more fruitless Talks and continued Tolerance for international atrocities.) Berlusconi's message was pro-American; his opponent called for greater European solidarity. Berlusconi promised to strengthen transatlantic relations; his challenger clucked away with the usual anti-American and anti-hawk squawking.
So what did the voters think? In the biggest win Ever for an Italian political coalition, Berlusconi's party won 47 percent of the votes (340 seats in the national assembly) and finished with a parliamentary majority of 101 seats, an Italian record. On the proverbial heel of wins by the French conservatives in both the presidential and parliamentary elections, the Italian right's decisive win may be part of a new and growing European trend. Of course, it’s much too soon to say whether the Berlusconi-Sarovsky victories are really the beginning of change. But for now, it’s spring, the birds are singing, and Italy’s whispering sweet nothings in my ear.
File Under: Mind Boggling International Events
We’re finally on the verge of Peace in the Middle East. What? You haven’t heard?? Jimmy Carter has met with Hamas chief Khaled Meshaal! Carter told the press he would “…try everything I can to get [Meshaal] to agree to a peaceful resolution of differences both with the Israelis…and also with Fatah.” Problem solved, people, so let’s all buy the totally awesome ex-Pres a drink, join hands, and commence with the Kumbayas.
(Not!) Carter’s wish for peace is admirable, but this meeting with Hamas was complete and utter foolishness. Carter is not only engaged in a futile endeavor - trying to use his personal charm to change the hearts and minds of the always-violent Hamas - he's also making himself useful to one of the most lethal terrorist groups on the planet. (For those not famililar, Hamas’ charter includes the following words: “Israel will exist…until Islam will obliterate it…”) So how does Hamas’ stated mission to destroy Israel in the name of their religion combined with their large militia equal “a good chance” (Carter's words) that he can convince Hamas to embrace non-violence? It doesn't - but apparently Carter isn’t one to let the facts get in the way of a good story. Nevermind Hamas' propensity for recruiting and training bus-blowing suicide bombers and the errant rockets fired into Gaza week in and week out. Carter is going to sweet talk these guys into playing nicey-nice, just you wait and see.
Has an ex-president ever done anything so unwise? Before you answer, consider that Carter has now given Hamas something they didn’t have before this week: a claim to legitimacy in the ranks of international politics. The sub-text of Carter's dialogue with Hamas is this: "Your murderous political activities do not preclude you from a seat at the negotiating table." As such, Hamas will be encouraged and emboldened. (By all accounts, both Hamas and the Palestinian Street were indeed crowing from the rooftops post-meeting.) Hamas’ monomaniacal rantings, the genocidal echoes of Abdel Nasser’s promise to drive all the Jews into the Mediterranean, seem to have little meaning for Carter. Or perhaps he thinks they’re not really serious? The families of over 1,000 dead Israelis since Arafat’s intifada was ordered up in late 2000 might beg to differ. The on-record ravings of Hamas might also serve to persuade - if Carter were willing to really hear. Hope springs eternal, as the saying goes, but apparently so does the foolishness of our 39th president.
"Do not set foot on the path of the wicked or walk in the way of evil men. Avoid it and do not travel on it; turn from it and go on your way. For they cannot sleep until they do evil; they are robbed of slumber until they make someone fall. They eat the bread of wickedness and drink the wine of violence." --- Proverbs 4:14-17
(Not!) Carter’s wish for peace is admirable, but this meeting with Hamas was complete and utter foolishness. Carter is not only engaged in a futile endeavor - trying to use his personal charm to change the hearts and minds of the always-violent Hamas - he's also making himself useful to one of the most lethal terrorist groups on the planet. (For those not famililar, Hamas’ charter includes the following words: “Israel will exist…until Islam will obliterate it…”) So how does Hamas’ stated mission to destroy Israel in the name of their religion combined with their large militia equal “a good chance” (Carter's words) that he can convince Hamas to embrace non-violence? It doesn't - but apparently Carter isn’t one to let the facts get in the way of a good story. Nevermind Hamas' propensity for recruiting and training bus-blowing suicide bombers and the errant rockets fired into Gaza week in and week out. Carter is going to sweet talk these guys into playing nicey-nice, just you wait and see.
Has an ex-president ever done anything so unwise? Before you answer, consider that Carter has now given Hamas something they didn’t have before this week: a claim to legitimacy in the ranks of international politics. The sub-text of Carter's dialogue with Hamas is this: "Your murderous political activities do not preclude you from a seat at the negotiating table." As such, Hamas will be encouraged and emboldened. (By all accounts, both Hamas and the Palestinian Street were indeed crowing from the rooftops post-meeting.) Hamas’ monomaniacal rantings, the genocidal echoes of Abdel Nasser’s promise to drive all the Jews into the Mediterranean, seem to have little meaning for Carter. Or perhaps he thinks they’re not really serious? The families of over 1,000 dead Israelis since Arafat’s intifada was ordered up in late 2000 might beg to differ. The on-record ravings of Hamas might also serve to persuade - if Carter were willing to really hear. Hope springs eternal, as the saying goes, but apparently so does the foolishness of our 39th president.
"Do not set foot on the path of the wicked or walk in the way of evil men. Avoid it and do not travel on it; turn from it and go on your way. For they cannot sleep until they do evil; they are robbed of slumber until they make someone fall. They eat the bread of wickedness and drink the wine of violence." --- Proverbs 4:14-17
09 April 2008
Tony Blair: “If you are somebody of faith it affects your politics, it affects everything that you do”
Click here to read a London TimesOnline piece re: former British Prime Minister Tony Blair talking about issues of faith and politics as well as his soon-to-be Faith Foundation. Blair recently converted to Catholocism, a fact now being widely reported in the media on both sides of the Puddle.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
