One of President Hussein Obama's first acts in office was to return to England a bust of Winston Churchill that had adorned the Oval Office during the Bush administration. Churchill was the anti-Obama.
President Obama has described himself as a 'citizen of the world.' In
doing so, he is characterizing himself as what we would call a
multi-culturalist. But he's not just someone who is tolerant of other
cultures - he's a dogmatic multi-culturalist and his 'tolerance' extends
to different forms of government. In Obama's world, all forms of
government and all governments are equal. None is any better than the
others.
Winston Churchill (Obama's anti-hero in more ways than
one) is known to have quipped that liberal democracy is the worst form
of government except for all the others. Obama disagrees with that
statement. He would argue that democracy is a form of government that is
no better nor worse than the others. Once one accepts that statement,
there is no advantage to be gained by promoting democracy. Each form of
government is to be treated as equally meitorious and is to be dealt
with on its own terms.
President Obama is as wrong about American history as he is about
policy. Many foreign leaders have tried to influence US foreign policy
when their national interests are involved. Lafayette tried to get the
United States involved in the French Revolution, as the early colonists
sought support from France in their own revolution. Winston Churchill
appeared in front of Congress and lobbied heavily to have America change
its isolationist policy during the run up to the Second World War. Nor
can President Obama claim ignorance about recent events, when he himself
sent David Cameron, the prime minister of the United Kingdom, to lobby
Congress in favor of the Iran deal. Recently, Shinzo Abe, the prime
minister of Japan, lobbied us with regard to the Trans-Pacific
Partnership.
Prime Minister Netanyahu's nation has a far greater stake in the Iran
deal than most of the countries that negotiated it. But Israel was
excluded from the negotiations. Any leader of Israel would and should
try to exercise whatever influence he might have in the ongoing debate
over the deal.
There can be no question that Israel is the primary intended target
of Iran's quest for a nuclear arsenal. Recall that Hashemi Rafsanjani,
the former president of Iran, has described Israel as a one-bomb state
that could be destroyed instantaneously, and that even if Israel
retaliated, it would not destroy Iran or Islam. No similar threats have
been made against Great Britain, France, Germany, Russia or China.
Although the United States is still regarded by Iran as the "Great
Satan", the U.S. has less to fear from an Iranian nuclear arsenal than
does Israel.
Does President Obama really believe that Israeli leaders are required
to remain silent and simply accept the consequences of a deal that puts
its population at risk? As Prime Minister Netanyahu has repeatedly
said, Israel is not Czechoslovakia. In 1938, Czechoslovakia too was
excluded from the negotiations that led to its dismemberment, but it had
no ability to influence the policies of the negotiating nations. Nor
did it have the ability to defend itself militarily, as Israel does.
The United States would surely not accept a deal negotiated by other
nations that put its citizens at risk. No American leader would remain
silent in the face of such a deal. Israel has every right to express its
concern about a deal that has crossed not only its own red lines, but
the red lines originally proposed by President Obama.
Dershowitz: There were better options on Iran - Obama gave them away
Yes, he's even lost Democratic stalwart Alan Dershowitz. President Hussein Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry keep telling us that there were 'no better options available' to their sellout to Iran. But Alan Dershowitz - an all-in Democrat - says there were better options, but Obama gave them away.
The reality is that there were always alternatives, though they
became less realistic as the negotiations progressed. We could have
stuck to the original redlines – non-negotiable demands – from the
beginning. These included on-the-spot inspections of all facilities
rather than the nearly month-long notice that will allow the Iranians to
hide what they are doing; shutting down all facilities specifically
designed for nuclear weapons production; maintaining the embargo on
missiles and other sophisticated weapons rather than allowing it to
gradually be lifted; and most crucially, a written assurance that the
international community will never allow Iran to develop a nuclear
arsenal. The current assortment of indeterminate and varying timelines
agreed to will allow Iranians to believe — and proclaim — they will soon
be free of any constraints on their nuclear adventurism.
Instead,
we caved early and often because the Iranians knew we desperately need a
deal to implement President Obama’s world vision and to enhance his
legacy.
This approach to the deal — surrendering leverage from
the outset — violated the most basic principles of negotiation 101. We
were playing checkers against the people who invented chess, and their
ayatollah checkmated our president.
But the real losers were those
countries — our allies — who were not even allowed to participate in
the negotiations. Virtually every Middle Eastern leader, with the
exception of Syria’s Assad, opposes this deal. Nor do they feel bound by
it, since they did not have a vote.
The deal was imposed on them, in
much the same way the Chamberlain-Hitler deal was imposed on
Czechoslovakia in 1938. The difference is that Czechoslovakia did not
have the means to defend itself, whereas Israel and some of its Sunni
neighbors do have the capacity to try to prevent Iran from developing a
nuclear arsenal — which the mullahs would use to increase their hegemony
over the area and to threaten Israel’s security through its surrogates,
Hezbollah and Hamas. Those groups would become even more aggressive
under the protection of an Iranian nuclear umbrella.
Scared by BDS'ers, al-Guardian rejects Dershowitz ad on Hamas tactics
Al-Guardian has rejected an ad on Hamas tactics by Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz because, among other things, it called into question the status of Gaza as 'the most densely populated area on earth' (Hat Tip: Haaretz).
“The British media is divided,” Dershowitz said in an interview. “But The Guardian,
which holds itself out to be a purveyor of diverse truth, clearly
reflects a bias against Israel on its editorial pages, as well as in its
presentation of the news. Now that bias has spread to the advertising
pages.”
The advertisement was based on an older editorial written by
Dershowitz for the Gatestone Institute and was sponsored by the Wechsler
Family Foundation, which had offered The Guardian
approximately $21,000 to run the piece, a New York City-based agency
specializing in overseas advertisement placements confirmed.
Dershowitz told JNS.org that newspapers “have a right to decide which ads to accept and reject,” but questioned The Guardian’s decision not to run his advertorial.
“My column was factually sound and not a personal attack on anybody.
It simply laid out the geographic facts of the Gaza Strip and its
implications,” he said.
“Dershowitz was presenting a new point of view in this article,” Harry Wechsler of the Wechsler Family Foundation told JNS.org in an email.
“Hamas was not forced into shooting their rockets from pads located
in urban areas, thereby leading to unavoidable civilian deaths,” wrote
Wechsler. “They were not shooting from some of the densest population
centers anywhere because they had no other choice. No—the choice was
there. Though not large, Gaza had ample space that was not densely
populated—farm land, empty spaces where rockets could have been stored
and shot from. Furthermore, the U.N. could easily have developed
temporary quarters in these same spaces for the sheltering of civilian
refugees, far away from the sites of battle.”
The editorial board of The Guardian, which screens political
or issues-based advertisements before they are published in the
newspaper, “turned us down and refused to take our ad, even after
working with their people for several days,” according to Wechsler.
In response to a comment request by JNS.org regarding The Guardian’s decision not to publish the Dershowitz advertisement, a spokesperson for the newspaper said, “The Guardian reserves the right to reject any advertisement.”
You might recall that last week, al-Guardian ran an ad by Eli Wiesel which had been rejected by the Times of London. What you may not know is that as a result of running that ad, al-Guardian received 140 complaints and felt obligated to issue a clarification related to that ad.
A spokesperson for Guardian News & Media, which owns the
Guardian, said: "The decision to run any display advertisement in the
Guardian is made on a case-by-case basis and there was a full discussion
about accepting the advert in question.
"However, the acceptance of advertising
from any organisation does not equate to support or endorsement for the
views expressed in that advert. The Guardian is fully committed to
reporting from the Middle East and our coverage will continue to be
independent and robust."
Who says writing letters to the editor doesn't make a difference? It scared the Guardian out of making the same 'mistake' with Dershowitz that it made with Wiesel.
Anti-J Street documentary screened in Philadelphia
I want to show you the trailer for a documentary (which I still have not seen) about the 'Jewish' J Street group, which calls itself 'pro-Israel, pro-peace.' J Street is currently seeking admission to the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, and the fact that this documentary was shown in Philadelphia last night will not help J Street's cause.
The J Street Challenge is an important and timely documentary about a significant issue facing the American Jewish community.
Since
it was founded in 2008, J Street's idealistic message has attracted
many Jews, young and old, who are frustrated by the Middle East conflict
and sincerely want peace between Arabs and Jews. J Street has been a
subject of controversy. Critics claim that J Street has divided the
Jewish community and weakened American Jewish support for Israel. "The J
Street Challenge" lets viewers hear both sides of this important debate
over the elusive solution to the Arab-Israeli conflict. The film
explores the reasons for J Street's appeal, as well as the diverse and
at times contradictory motivations of its leaders and followers. The
film is being released at a critical time for the American Jewish
community given the intense efforts by the United States to resolve the
conflict and influence the community's leadership to support these
efforts. The Kerry peace initiative has further divided the Jewish
community, with J Street working to weaken the influence of AIPAC while
strongly backing the administration.
The film includes distinguished
scholars and writers from a wide political spectrum, including Harvard
professors Alan Dershowitz and Ruth Wisse, Rabbi Daniel Gordis of the
Shalem College in Jerusalem, Caroline Glick, Managing Editor of the
Jerusalem Post, Professor Richard Landes of Boston University, Lenny Ben
David -- former Israeli diplomat and author, and Bret Stephens,
Pulitzer prize winning columnist for The Wall Street Journal.
Let's go to the videotape. More after the video.
At issue is a March 27 event sponsored by the Jewish Federation of
Greater Philadelphia and by the local Hillel, titled “What It Means To
Be Pro-Israel.” The answer to the question, at least in the eyes of the
organizers, is revealed in the event’s content: It will feature a
screening of a full-length anti-J-Street documentary and a panel made up
mainly of critics of the organization.
The upcoming event has sparked an angry debate within
the Philadelphia community, the nation’s fourth largest, and has
brought to the surface accusations against the Jewish federation’s
leadership and its decision-making process. “Political views on the
right are listened to more, because the few people donating large
amounts of dollars are on that political side,” said Jill Zipin, a
community activist who has protested the decision to sponsor the event.
“The Jewish federation shouldn’t be a tent of one Jewish donor.”
Panelists at the event, which will take place on the
University of Pennsylvania campus, include Harvard law professor Alan
Dershowitz, a staunch defender of Israel and just as staunch a critic of
J Street; Charles Jacobs, who heads the group that produced the
anti-J-Street film, and Sara Greenberg, a Harvard University graduate
student who has been active in fighting attempts to boycott Israel.
Supporters of J Street have taken issue with the
makeup of the panel and, more importantly, with the movie that will be
the evening’s centerpiece. The J Street Challenge,
released earlier this year, is a documentary aimed, according to the
film’s official synopsis, at “examining and debating J Street’s message
and its leaders.” It does so through clips from speeches of the lobby’s
leaders and a series of interviews with experts, almost all of them
known as leading critics of the group. Speakers in the movie
accuse J Street of “dividing the Jewish community,” of being
“imperialistic” and of manifesting “arrogance” in their views on Middle
East peace. The J Street Challenge was produced by Americans for Peace
and Tolerance, a not-for-profit organization devoted to fighting Islamic
extremism.
The J Street Challenge - The Seductive Allure of Peace in our Time
Here's a trailer for a new movie that I know you're all going to want to watch. It's all about the 'pro-Israel, pro-peace' J Street, and the challenge they represent to the Jewish community. I have a few friends who are in this trailer.
American Jewish 'leaders' circle the wagons for Kerry
Greetings from... Chicago.
152 American Jewish 'leaders' are circling the wagons for US Secretary of State John FN Kerry's 'peace efforts' writing a letter of support for the 'peace efforts' to Prime Minister Netanyahu.
“As American advocates for a strong, Jewish and democratic Israel, we
have been heartened by Secretary of State John Kerry’s extraordinary
resolve to advance this process consistent with America’s unwavering
commitment to Israel’s security,” said the letter sent Wednesday and
initiated by the Israel Policy Forum.
“We believe Secretary Kerry’s determined diplomatic effort offers an
unprecedented opportunity to ensure Israel’s security, to enhance its
prosperity, and to avoid the existential threat to the Jewish state
posed by bi-nationalism.”
There's that demographic demon again. It's a lie.
Among the letter’s signatories are Jewish leaders who are noted for
their outspoken defense of Israel and at times of Netanyahu’s
government, among them Alan Dershowitz, the legal expert and author;
Deborah Lipstadt, the Holocaust scholar; Mel Levine, a former Democratic
congressman; Michael and Susie Gelman, major philanthropists and
leaders in the Washington community; Rabbi Steve Gutow, the president of
the Jewish Council for Public Affairs; Rabbi Rick Jacobs, the president
of the Union for Reform Judaism; and major fundraisers for Democratic
political campaigns, including Marvin Lender, Alan Solow and Alan
Solomont.
I'm not going there....
But could someone please explain to me why for American Jewish 'leaders' it seems to be the Democratic party uber alles? Or perhaps this is just another manifestation of the poritz syndrome. Funny, I don't see Abe Foxman on the list. Perhaps that's why he announced his retirement this week (or why he felt free to speak out last week).
Dershowitz on what Syrian civil war tells us about Israel
The problem with the West is that it doesn't understand what ethnic conflict is about. Alan Dershowitz quotes Fareed Zakaria who explains.
“People fight to the end because they know that losers in such wars get
killed or ‘ethnically cleansed.’” In this kind of war the worlds
“ethnically cleansed” do not mean displaced or made refugees. They mean,
as Zakaria further explained, massacred: “Then you have phase 2, which
is the massacre of the Alawites, the 14 percent of Syria that has ruled
and that will be a bloodbath.”
They don't stop at civilians nor at women and children. In an ethnic conflict, which is what the Syrian civil war is and is likely to be, everyone is murdered. It's real ethnic cleansing. Dershowitz explains what that means for Israel.
Imagine then what would happen if Israel were ever to lose a war with
its Arab and Muslim enemies (as it almost did when it was attacked on
Yom Kippur in 1973 by the Egyptian and Syrian armies.) The hatred
directed against Jews in general and Israel in particular by Israel’s
enemies is far more malignant than the animosity between Sunni and Shia
Muslims or between Muslim and Christian Arabs. It is taught in schools,
preached in mosques and repeated in the media. There would be no mercy
shown. Israeli armies would not be allowed to surrender and be
repatriated, as the Egyptian army was when it was trapped in Sinai at
the end of the 1973 war.
Israeli civilians would be targeted as
they already have been by Hamas and Hezbollah rockets fired in the
direction of large population centers. The goal of the first war against
Israel, as expressed by one of its leaders, was “this will be a war of
extermination.” The desire for revenge has only grown over the course of
further warfare and more defeats.
Every Israeli lives under the
grim shadow of this reality. Nor do they count on timely outside
intervention to prevent massacres. Remember, this is a nation built on
the memory of the Holocaust, during which the world – including the
United States, Great Britain and Canada – shut their gates on those
seeking to escape genocide.
Of course, what Dershowitz doesn't get is that the Israeli - 'Palestinian' conflict is also an ethnic conflict, and given the opportunity, the 'Palestinians' would do the same thing to Israeli Jews that Syrian Muslims would do to Jews, or that Syrian Sunni and Shia (including Alawites) would do to each other.
Dershowitz 'doesn't understand' how Left glorifies American terrorists
Alan Dershowitz tells Newsmax TV that he doesn't understand how the Left glorifies American terrorists.
Let's go to the videotape.
Hey Alan - all those people are supported by people who admire you. All of them take advantage of the rights granted to them under US law. Look at how the Left reacted, for example, to the younger Tsarnaev brother not being read his Miranda rights. All of them support unfettered immigration to the United States from the Third World (which is how the Tsarnaev's got in). Can you convince some of your own followers to stop glorifying terrorism? Let's start with Robert Redford....
Dershowitz has a change of heart, says he'll testify against Hagel
Even Alan Dershowitz apparently realizes that he now must choose between supporting Israel and supporting President Hussein Obama. After issuing a milquetoast statement in response to the nomination of Chuck Hagel to be Secretary of Defense, Dershowitz told Breitbart.com on Monday night that he is willing to testify against Hagel on Iran.
Breitbart News: Who were the opposing voices among Democrats and the administration?
Dershowitz: I don't know for sure. I've been
told--well, the head of the National Jewish Democratic Council came out
against it...but I'm told that an number of others within the White
House advised him not to do it. And there are a number of Democratic
Senators, Jewish and non-Jewish, who are opposed but who will either
vote for Hagel, if needed, to get him through--or will vote against him
if their votes are not needed.
But this is not a liberal-conservative split or a Democrat-Republican
split. Nor is it about whether Hagel used the term "Israel lobby" or
"Jewish lobby," for me. It's all about Iran. And I think that's a
serious policy issue.
And I have been approached to testify, possibly, about it. And if
asked, I will testify against Hagel's nomination--on the issue of Iran.
I actually find what I highlighted in Dershowitz's first paragraph even more interesting. Convictions? Values? Morals? Don't expect any of those from the Democrats. I thought only the Knesset worked that way.
“It is less important what he (Hagel) really thinks, it is what the
Iranians think he thinks,” that is important, added the prominent
Democrat. “The Iranians are celebrating this appointment in Tehran, this
was a great appointment for Tehran, its a green light or at least a
yellow light for them to pursue their nuclear program.”
“I makes it more likely that Iran will actually move towards
developing a nuclear program and it makes it more likely that there will
have to be a military response. This is a very bad nomination for
peace.”
...
“Even if he is not confirmed it is a bad decision,” Dershowitz added,
“because it conveys to the Iranians the President’s state of mind, and
they will misunderstand it. They will misunderstand this
as believing the president does not want to keep the military option
on the table, so the nomination itself will set back the cause of peace,
even if he is ultimately not confirmed.”
I don't think the Iranians are misunderstanding at all. Obama doesn't care if they go nuclear so long as the only state they attack is Israel.
MTA changes their advertising rules, the Dersh calls new rules unconstitutional
Just one day after Mona Eltahaway was arrested in New York for vandalizing Pamela Geller's subway advertisements (see above), New York City's Metropolitan Transportation Authority changed its rules regarding ads like the ones in question.
The New York Times reports the MTA will prohibit any
advertisements that it “reasonably foresees would imminently incite or
provoke violence or other immediate breach of the peace.” Those
“viewpoint” ads that do not meet this criteria will be allowed, so long
as a disclaimer is included saying the MTA does not endorse them. The
MTA met on Thursday to discuss the rules, which were approved
unanimously 8-0.
Self-proclaimed “proud-liberal Muslim” activist Mona Eltahawy served
as the impetus of the ruling after she spray painted a pro-Israel
advertisement placed in the New York City subway.
Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz says that the new rules are plain dumb and unconstitutional.
“A. it’s clearly unconstitutional” he said, and “b. it incentivizes
people to engage in violence. What it says to people, is that if they
don’t like ads, just engage in violence and then we’ll take the ads
down.”
“It’s very bad policy,” he continued, “and it’s just plain dumb, because it is going to encourage violence.”
Responding to the charge in an interview with The Algemeiner, M.T.A. spokesperson Aaron Donovan declined to comment.
...
The Law Professor also made clear that he is certain the decision
will face legal challenges. “It will be challenged, there is no question
about that,” he confirmed, “if the ACLU (American Civil Liberties
Union) doesn’t get into this case immediately, they are going to have to
write to me several times for my contribution this year. This is a
perfect case for the ACLU, the ACLU should be in there, opposed to the
MTA.”
“I would hope the ACLU would get behind the organization that put up
the ads even though I’m sure they disagree with the content of the ads,
as do I,” he concluded.
When asked by The Algemeiner if they had considered the
constitutionality of their decision, M.T.A. spokesperson Aaron Donovan
said that he wasn’t concerned. “All of the changes that were made to the
guidelines, were made within the framework of our understanding of
First Amendment law, we feel the guidelines as they have been amended
are firmly planted in the bedrock of the constitution, specifically the
First Amendment,” he said.
I wonder whether the ACLU will get behind Pam and her group. Hmmm.
After failing to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital city in their initial 2012 platform, which prompted a sharp rebuke from Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney, the Democrats reinstated language on the issue from their 2008 and 2004 versions, however Dershowitz told The Algemeiner that his party did not go far enough. Isolating Hamas until it renounces terrorism, solving the Palestinian refugee crisis through a Palestinian state alone, and affirming that a two-state solution could not realistically force Israel back to its borders of 1949 should be publicly endorsed by President Obama within the coming weeks, after statements on these issues were also left out of the Democratic platform this year.
“I am not satisfied…..and I communicated this to the White House, I would like to see the president make statements over the course of the coming weeks which re-affirm what was said in the 2008 platform, not only with regards to Jerusalem, but in regard to the borders, the refugees and with regard to Hamas,” Dershowitz said. “I am hoping that the president will make such statements, because I know those are his beliefs because I have spoken to him and to those in the White House.”
Hey Alan - if those are his beliefs (which I frankly doubt), they have a 'sell by' date: November 6, 2012. Obama is from the Groucho Marx school: "Those are my principles. If you don't like them, I have others." Don't hold your breath waiting for him to reaffirm those things. He won't. More likely, he'll give you a long, lawyerly explanation of why he doesn't have to. (By the way, Alan, do you ever recall seeing Obama at Harvard?).
But Dershowitz has another delusion:
Speaking of “rogue elements” within the Democratic party, which he said range from Arab-Americans to anti-Israeli American Jews, Dershowitz said it was their goal to end the alliance between the United States and Israel, and that the 2008 language regarding Jerusalem, Hamas, Palestinian refugees, and Israel’s borders were all left out of the initial 2012 platform due to their efforts.
“I think these rogue elements had a hand in changing the 2012 platform from the 2008 one. Whatever the arguments and justifications are, there is no doubt in my mind that there are these rogue elements within the Democratic party, and they are trying to exercise influence,” he told The Algemeiner. “If they had their way, (they) would end the kind of positive relationship between Israel and the United States.”
Dershowitz said that delegates “tend to reflect the extremes of the party”, which he says are a minority on the left, however he does not believe there was the two-thirds vote necessary to amend the Democrat’s platform language on Israel, which passed when convention chair and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa passed the measure after three separate votes.
“I do not believe that two thirds of the delegates voted to change the platform. I think that there was a statement made by the chairman, but I don’t think he was right about that,” Dershowtz said to The Algemeiner. “From the voices that I heard, it sounded like it was split down the middle, with maybe a slight majority in favor of changing the platform.”
Hey Alan, if this is true, how did these delegates get there? How did Nihad Awad get there? How did Ned Lamont beat Joe Lieberman in the Democratic Senate primary in Connecticut six years ago? How did Keith Ellison end up in Congress? How did Bill Pascrell beat Steve Rothman in NJ-9 a couple of months ago? No, Alan, this isn't a rogue element. This is the Democratic party. Let's at least face that reality. The majority of Democrats may not agree with everything they say, but this 'rogue element' is now the majority in every institution the Democrats have. What could go wrong?
Democrats lie about AIPAC being in room when platform drafted; Dershowitz 'deeply troubled'; Dems say platform reflects Obama policy on Israel
These are times that try a man's sleep.
I went to sleep for a few hours last night. While I was asleep, the Democrats made the claim that the significant changes made to their platform regarding Israel were made with AIPAC representatives in the room, and with AIPAC's approval. In fact, Democratic party sources went so far as to say that AIPAC loved the platform.
I'm sure you'll all be shocked to hear that once again, the Democrats are lying. AIPAC was not consulted.
“AIPAC officials were not in the room when the platform was drafted,” the source told the Free Beacon Tuesday evening. “AIPAC was never provided with a full draft of the Middle East section of the platform.”
...
The AIPAC source went on to explain that pro-Israel organization had advocated in favor of preserving the language regarding Jerusalem.
“Jerusalem as the capital is Israel was part of the AIPAC submission to the platform committee,” the AIPAC source said.
An official in the Jewish community who requested anonymity said the DNC process was “very surreptitious and very secretive.”
“The idea that the pro-Israel community’s leadership signed off on this is just not true,” the official said.
I was curious how Alan Dershowitz, who has stood by President Obama for most of the last four years, would react to these significant changes to the platform. The Daily Caller reports that he is 'deeply troubled' by them.
“I think one shouldn’t give too much weight to platform pronouncements, but in this case, I think the omissions are troubling — particularly the omission about the Palestinian refugee issue and Hamas are, I think, deeply troubling,” he told The Daily Caller, responding to a report in the Washington Free Beacon demonstrating how this year’s Democratic Party platform is not as pro-Israel as in years past.
...
Dershowitz said he is concerned that this year’s Democratic Party platform will make Israel a partisan issue, something he thinks is not good for the U.S.-Israel relationship.
“My goal is always to keep support for Israel a bi-partisan issue and never make a national election any kind of referendum on Israel,” he said. “I don’t think it is a good thing that the Republican platform seems to be more pro-Israel than the Democratic platform.”
Dershowtiz said that this is not the last the Democratic Party has heard about the platform as he is personally going to get to the bottom of what happened.
“As soon as I hang up with you, I will call people I know in the White House and in the Democratic Party and find out what’s going on,” he said. ”But believe me this is not the last the Democrats will have heard about this issue. They will hear from me on this one.”
Dershowitz says while the platform debate could potentially just be chocked up to “carelessness,” he is afraid that anti-Israel extremists within the Democratic Party are having undue influence.
“It’s not the Democratic base. It’s extremists within the Democratic base who may have more influence than they should on platform,” he said. “I think extremists within the base may very well move the Democratic party away from its pro-Israel position.”
Well, no Professor. It's been about six years now since the Democratic party was taken over by the anti-Israel extremists. Perhaps you missed it.
Now that Senator Lieberman (I-Ct) is retiring rather than face another campaign as an independent, maybe he can take a trip up to Boston and explain to Professor Dershowitz who controls the Democratic party these days.
And for anyone who thinks that the new Democratic party platform doesn't reflect Obama policy, let's go to the videotape (Hat Tip: The Right Scoop via Bad Blue).
Anyone still want to argue that the Obama administration is pro-Israel?
It’s hard to find anyone who has done as much for the Jewish community as Sheldon Adelson.
Adelson grew up in Boston in near poverty and is a shining example of the American dream. He is a self-made multi-billionaire who has contributed significantly to the world of modern technology and to the economic growth of Las Vegas and other areas. His generosity has helped repair the world.
I AM a Democrat and do not agree with many of Adelson’s political views, but I think it’s outrageous for the National Jewish Democratic Council to level unfounded allegations against Adelson. They do not speak for me, and for the many other Jews who admire Adelson’s contributions to the world, to America, to Israel and to the Jewish community.
I don’t know who Harris purports to speak for as president of the NJDC, but his partisan gamesmanship is an embarrassment to many Jewish Democrats. The attack comes with particular ill grace from a Jewish organization, considering all that Adelson has done for Jewish causes, and considering the fact that there is nothing uniquely “Jewish” about the questionable allegations against him.
Moreover, the demand that Mitt Romney return Adelson’s contributions is absurd. If all candidates had to return the contributions of every businessman against whom questionable allegations were made in a vengeful lawsuit, millions of dollars would have to be returned by hundreds of candidates all around the country.
Why accepting a 'two-state solution' delegitimizes Israel
Martin Sherman has a lengthy JPost article which explains why accepting a 'two-state solution' to the Israeli-Arab dispute delegitimizes the State of Israel. Here are some key passages.
Future historians will be baffled as to why such a manifestly disastrous, unworkable concept came to be embraced by so many prominent, allegedly well-informed pundits, politicians, and policy-makers. They will be particularly perplexed why the two-state solution was so enthusiastically endorsed not only by those who had a vested interest in feigning support for it, but by those who had a vested interest in exposing it as the duplicitous subterfuge it is. They will be mystified why – despite the fact that it proved devastating for both Arabs and Jews – it became the hallmark of enlightenment.
Recent events have brought home dramatically not only how futile it is for Israel and Israel-supporters to adhere to the two-state paradigm, but also how counterproductive it is.
For by pursuing the “vision” (read “fantasy”) of two states, they will not only fail to reap the intended benefits this policy is purported to yield, but will precipitate outcomes highly deleterious to Israel – indeed the very outcomes the two-state policy was supposed to prevent.
The latest round of rocket fire from Gaza underscored just how ill-considered it would be to relinquish more land to the Palestinians in Judea and Samaria. The recent Harvard one-state conference demonstrated how clinging to an unfeasible formula has merely generated the opportunity to promote even more menacing alternatives.
...
For whatever the final contours of a putative Palestinian state, it would entail a frontier of at least 300 kilometers – approximately six times longer than the Gaza front – much of which would be adjacent to Israel’s most populous urban centers, from the environs of Haifa in the north to Beersheba and beyond in the south. (Significantly, Beersheba is much closer to the pre-1967 border of the “West Bank” than it is to the Gaza Strip).
Moreover, unlike in Gaza, a Palestinian state in Judea and Samaria would reduce Israel’s width in its most populous areas to a minuscule 11-25 km. – roughly the distance from Beverly Hills to Malibu along Sunset Boulevard.
Even more important than geographic expanse – or the lack thereof – is topographical structure. Unlike the flat Gaza Strip, the limestone hills that comprise the “West Bank” dominate the urbanized Coastal Plain, together with much of Israel’s vital infrastructure, its only international airport, vital centers of civilian government and military command – and 80 percent of its population and commercial activity.
All of this would be in range of the weapons that forced a million Israelis into bomb shelters last weekend, now deployed along a much longer front and in far superior topographical positions.
Even given the impressive performance of the Iron Dome anti-rocket system, this would make any semblance of economic or social routine untenable.
...
The point many well-intentioned friends of Israel seem be to missing is that it is precisely “moderate supporters of the two-state solution” who have, in large measure, sown the seeds for the delegitimization of Israel.
While this contention may appear counterintuitive, the logic behind it is unassailable. Once the legitimacy of a Palestinian state is conceded, the delegitimization of Israel is inevitable.
The chain of reasoning is clear: If the legitimacy of a Palestinian state is accepted, then any measures incompatible with its viability are illegitimate. But, Israel’s minimum security requirements necessarily obviate the viability of Palestinian state. Thus, by accepting the admissibility of a Palestinian state, one necessarily admits the inadmissibility of measures required to ensure Israeli security.
Conversely, measures required to ensure Israeli security necessarily negate the viability of a Palestinian state.
For the notion of a secure Israel to regain legitimacy, the notion of a Palestinian state must be discredited and removed from the discourse as a possible means of resolving the Israeli-Arab conflict.
...
The first – and most crucial – step along this arduous road is to expose the Palestinian claim to nationhood for the hoax it is.
For the Palestinians are indeed an “invented people.” Not because Newt Gingrich deems them to be, but because they themselves declare this to be so.
The historical record is replete with proclamations from Arab and Palestinian leaders, echoing the frank admission by the late Zuheir Mohsen, former PLO Executive Council member, that a “separate Palestinian identity exists only for tactical reasons,” and that the “the establishment of a Palestinian state is a new tool to continue the fight against Israel.”
Indeed, the Palestinian National Charter (Article 12) concedes that the endeavor to “safeguard... Palestinian identity” in merely a temporary ruse.
Moreover, not only was the territory, now claimed as the age-old Palestinian homeland, under Jordanian rule for two decades prior to 1967, without even a feeble effort to establish a Palestinian state in it being made; but the Palestinians eschewed any sovereign claim to it, explicitly conceding (Article 24 of the 1964 National Charter) that it belonged to another sovereign entity – Jordan – which only in 1988 relinquished its claim to it.
It was only after these territories came under Jewish control that Palestinians began to see them as a location for their state.
'Obama could be the Chamberlain of the 21st century'
In an interview on Media Matters' anti-Semitic attacks on Israel, Alan Dershowitz tells Newsmax that President Obama could be the Neville Chamberlain of the 21st century.
On the record, the people involved insist there is no Israel element to what they say is a humanitarian endeavor to remove the movement’s followers from danger.
“I don’t see any Israel issue at all,” Dershowitz told JTA in an interview, instead casting it in terms of Hillel’s dictum, “If I am only for myself, who am I?”
Off the record, however, figures close to the campaign use another ancient Middle Eastern dictum to describe the involvement of pro-Israel groups: “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”
A source close to the effort to bring pro-Israel voices into the initiative cited reports that Israel has allied with the MEK, which reportedly maintains agents in Iran and in the past has published details of Iran’s nuclear weapons program.
The organized pro-Israel community, however, has been reluctant to sign on. One official at a pro-Israel group said pushing to de-list MEK without a full review could undercut efforts to keep groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah on the list.
“They're listed as a terrorist group, and until the U.S. government says otherwise, we’re not going to deal with them,” said the official, whose group otherwise counsels a tough posture against the Iranian regime.
The MEK, an Iranian exile group that some accuse of being a cult, has maintained a presence in Iraq since 1986, when Saddam Hussein welcomed it as a useful thorn in the side of his deadly enemy. From its border encampment, Camp Ashraf, it conducted operations against the theocracy in Iran. The MEK claims to have ended military activities in 2001.
Subsequent to the 2003 U.S.-led invasion that removed Saddam, Camp Ashraf disarmed as a condition of maintaining its presence in the country.
Read the whole thing. Supporters of delisting the MEK include John Bolton, Rudolph Giuliani, former Attorney General Michael Mukasey and many others.
In answering a recent attack by Max Blumenthal, formerly of Media Matters for America (MMfA), Prof. Dershowitz said, “Let me tell you, Max Blumenthal and Media Matters will be singlehandedly responsible for (Obama) losing this election. They (the Democrats) cannot win the election and keep this affiliation with them.”
I agree with Prof. Dershowitz, though obviously I think there are many, many more reasons why President Obama should lose this election (trillions, if you consider his latest budget proposal).
This just shows that Americans of all political stripes are awakened to the dangers of unethical journalists and media organizations that deceive their audiences and use bullying tactics to unfairly target political opponents.
I sure hope Palin's right, because I don't see Obama throwing them under the bus so quickly.
I am an Orthodox Jew - some would even call me 'ultra-Orthodox.' Born in Boston, I was a corporate and securities attorney in New York City for seven years before making aliya to Israel in 1991 (I don't look it but I really am that old :-). I have been happily married to the same woman for thirty-five years, and we have eight children (bli ayin hara) ranging in age from 13 to 33 years and nine grandchildren. Four of our children are married! Before I started blogging I was a heavy contributor on a number of email lists and ran an email list called the Matzav from 2000-2004. You can contact me at: IsraelMatzav at gmail dot com
