At the Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina on Monday, former Texas Governor Rick Perry called a spade, a spade. He slammed Turkey for being governed by Islamic terrorists and urged NATO to expel the Islamic state. The Turks are furious (Hat Tip: Joshua I).
Perry made the remarks when he was asked by moderator of the program whether Turkey should still belong in NATO, given that “the murder rate of women has increased 1,400 percent, press freedom has declined to the level of Russia, Prime Minister of Turkey has embraced Hamas and Turkey threatened military action against both Israel and Cyprus since the Islamist-oriented party took over.”
“Obviously when you have a country that is being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists, when you start seeing that type of activity against their own citizens, then, yes, not only is it time for us to have a conversation about whether or not they belong to be in NATO but it’s time for the United States, when we look at their foreign aid, to go to zero with it,” Perry boldly claimed.
“And you go to zero with foreign aid for all of those countries. It does not make any difference who they are. You go to zero with foreign aid and you have the conversation about do they have America’s best interests in mind. When you have countries that are moving far away from the country that I lived in back in the 1970s as a pilot of the US Air Force, that was our ally, they worked with us. But today, we don’t see that,” Perry said.
And in case anyone didn't get it, a Perry spokesperson explained it.
Victoria Coates, his foreign policy advisor, said that some view the leaders of Turkey as Islamic terrorists due to their support of Hamas and the flotilla against Israel, according to ABC News.
“The governor was responding to the questioners references to violence against women and to association with Hamas, I think both of which are things that many people do associate as he said with Islamic terrorists,” Coates was quoted as telling reporters by ABC News. “He was referring to those things, and while he would welcome the opportunity to work with Turkey on regional issues like Syria or Iraq, this kind of behavior on the part of that country is disturbing and I think we should concerned about it.”
Asked if the leaders of Turkey have performed any actions which place them in the category of Islamic terrorists, Coates responded: “What he said was that many people associate that kind of behavior with that of Islamic terrorists. I think also their support for the flotilla against Israel this fall. It's deeply concerning, and I think it's something any future American president needs to be aware of."
Irony alert: Obama claims Republicans would cut aid to Israel, except Ron Paul
Notice the advertisement above. It comes from President Obama's campaign website. It claims that Romney, Perry and Gingrich would cut aid to Israel. It's a lie. It doesn't mention Ron Paul. That's another lie. Maybe Obama wants to run against Ron Paul? Yid with Lid reports.
Each of these candidate have said they would take a zero-based approach to foreign aid, not one of them has indicated they would stop sending aid to Israel. Each of the above candidates have long track records of supporting Israel, at times bothGingrich and Perry have been accused of being over the top in their support of the Jewish State. As for Romney, support of Israel is one of the areas he hasn't flip-flopped on.
Obama's internal polling must show he is in danger of losing a big slice of the 78% of Jews who voted for him in 2008--hence his recent appointment of an Orthodox Jew as his Chief of Staff and his lies about the GOP and Israel.
I think Obama wants to run against Ron Paul, because that will make all the Israel supporters stay home.
He doesn't mention Santorum either but I suspect that's because Santorum hasn't called for zero-based foreign aid.
Rick Santorum, who until two weeks ago was lagging in the GOP Iowa caucus race, finished in a dead heat with frontrunner Mitt Romney, each getting 25% of the vote. Ron Paul finished third and Newt Gingrich finished fourth, followed by Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann.
With 98 percent of precincts reporting the race was too close to call. Both candidates were tied at 25 percent and Ron Paul, a Texas congressman, was set to claim third place with 21 percent of the vote.
Iowa is better known for narrowing the field than picking a future president, and at least one candidate, Texas Governor Rick Perry, indicated his presidential bid may be over.
"I've decided to return to Texas, assess the results of tonight's caucus, determine whether there is a path forward for myself in this race," Texas Governor Rick Perry said after a disappointing fifth place finish.
With deep reserves of cash and a strong campaign infrastructure, Romney, a former Massachusetts governor, will emerge from Iowa in a much stronger position than his rivals even though he faces continued mistrust from conservatives.
A favorite of the party's business wing, Romney holds a commanding lead in the next nominating contest in New Hampshire in one week and has the resources to compete in bigger states like Florida at the end of the month.
Santorum vaulted from the back of the pack to emerge as the latest conservative favorite in a race that has been marked by volatility. Campaigning in all Iowa 99 counties, he emphasized his seven home-schooled children and opposition to gay marriage in a bid to win the state's large bloc of Christian conservatives.
"Game on!" the former Pennsylvania senator told supporters.
Santorum staked his campaign on a strong showing in Iowa but with little cash and a bare-bones campaign operation, he could have difficulty competing in other states.
As an afterthought in the race until now, Santorum also had avoided the scrutiny that has derailed other candidates. Pennsylvania voters threw him out of the Senate by an 18-point margin in 2006, and rivals have begun to comb through his legislative record to paint him as a free-spending budget-buster.
Conventional wisdom holds that there are three tickets out of the state, though John McCain was able to overcome a fourth-place finish in 2008 to win the Republican nomination.
It sounds like Perry and Bachmann are out, and likely throwing their support to Santorum or Gingrich if at all. Santorum is rumored to be picking up a lot of money as his campaign has strengthened in Iowa, and these results have to help him a lot.
Here's an interesting segment of the Republican foreign policy debate that took place over the weekend - note especially Governor Perry's and Representative Santorum's comments about Iran. At least someone gets it (I have heard rumors that Perry is taking foreign policy advice from former US Ambassador to the UN John Bolton).
"Obviously, we are going to support Israel. And I've said that we will support Israel in every way that we can, whether it's diplomatic, whether it's economic sanctions, whether it's overt or covert operations, up to and including military action," the Texas governor said in an interview on CNN.
"We cannot afford to allow that madman in Iran to get his hands on a nuclear weapon, period," Perry added.
There's just one small problem: From what we have heard of the IAEA report due out next week, neither Perry nor any other Republican is likely to be President when Israel needs to attack.
If something like this were written in an Israeli newspaper, we'd be castigated for trying to play one side off against the other in the United States. But in Londonistan, this is considered acceptable.
In an article in London's Financial Times, Simon Schama, a professor at Bir Zeit on the Hudson, tars all Right wing supporters of Israel as 'false friends.' Here are a couple of 'highlights' (Hat Tip: Gary P).
Responding to statements made by Rick Perry:
Just setting aside the fact that no-one in Israel (and in the Jewish community world wide) would deny that Palestinians have suffered tragically over the past half century, Mr Perry’s assertion that president Obama treats rocket attacks by Hamas and Jewish settlement construction on the West Bank as “equivalent” threats to peace is manifestly absurd and unfounded.
Really? To which one does Obama object more frequently and more vociferously? Based on what happened with the Gilo neighborhood of Jerusalem on Tuesday, I would say construction in the 'settlements' bothers Obama a heck of a lot more. And by the way, when did he request that the 'Palestinian Authority' enforce a moratorium on rocket fire? Answer: He didn't and they won't.
But then Mr Perry – and others among the evangelicals aspiring to the White House like Michelle Bachmann – share the fundamentalist vision of the settlers themselves that they are fulfilling a Biblical covenant on the “Land of Israel” when they evict Palestinian villagers, demolish their houses, bulldoze their olive groves and embitter the possibility of any future co-existence of the two peoples in their own respective states.
When have 'Palestinian villagers' been evicted? There has not been a new Jewish town in Judea or Samaria in the last 18 years, and nearly all the construction that was done was done on state land (i.e. land that was occupied by the Jordanian government until 1967 and has been owned by the Government of Israel since). When have 'Palestinian' homes - other than those of terrorist murderers - been demolished? When have olive groves been bulldozed except when they were used as cover to shoot at passing Israeli motorists? Lies. Simply lies.
Insisting on “direct negotiations” between the parties, he fails to notice that that is exactly what happened at Oslo and at Sharm el-Sheikh. In both cases the Palestine Liberation Organisation formally recognised Israel’s right to exist and to live in peace and security within mutually-agreed borders.
Let's assume that's true (which it's not - it's a distortion): Why won't the 'Palestinians' come to the table now? And notice how he omits Camp David, Taba and Annapolis, all of which were direct negotiations, and at all of which the 'Palestinians' turned down offers that would have given them nearly everything they wanted.
When he upbraids president Obama for saying that the starting point of those frontiers ought to be the Green Line of 1967; that has been exactly the position of Israeli and US governments (including Republican administrations) for a long time; with adjustments made through territorial swaps. That was the basis on which Ehud Olmert - not exactly a pinko peacenik – and Tzipi Livni negotiated with Mahmoud Abbas in 2008.
Olmert is a pinko peacenik, but that's beside the point. No American government until now ever made the 1967 lines the starting point and gave the 'Palestinians' an effective veto on any changes to it.
If not made on the basis of the 1967 frontier, then it is incumbent on the likes of Mr Perry, Mr Romney and Ms Bachmann to say where secure boundaries might lie that would not involve the permanent Israeli occupation of the West Bank, inhabited as it is by a large Palestinian population?
Actually that ought to be a subject for direct negotiations between the parties and not for Perry, Romney or Bachman to say.
No Israeli government with any sense of a secure future – from Menahem Begin to Ariel Sharon to Olmert – has clung to the dangerous fantasy of annexation, involving as it must either the the subjugation of a permanently alienated population or their catastrophic and immoral displacement.
Isn't it funny then that many Israelis are seriously considering annexation as an option? Maybe that's because as between subjugating the 'Palestinians' or dying (God forbid), we have decided that we would rather stay alive?
According to polling done by the Harry Truman Institute of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem in May 2010, a clear and growing majority of Israelis are willing to dismantle the majority of West Bank settlements as part of a comprehensive peace policy.
Three answers: Polls like this Truman poll are influencing Israelis to go in a different direction. Dismantling 'the majority of West Bank settlements' isn't the same as dismantling all of them and most Israelis won't accept dismantling all of them while the 'Palestinians' will accept no less than dismantling all of them. When you get to the details of a question like that (which towns yes, and which towns no), the answers tend to fall apart. And by the way, what is a 'comprehensive peace policy' and what do you do about the fact that the 'Palestinians' won't accept one?
Sorry Professor Schama, but those friends on the Right are truer friends than Obama will ever be. Deal with it.
Asked about Perry’s recent strongly pro-Israel comments, Clinton said the 2012 Republican hopeful’s stance was “good politics.”
“Rick Perry — that’s my culture, you know? I’m from next door,” the Arkansas native said on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe.” “There’s an enormous reservoir of support for Israel in the Christian evangelical community, and a lot of them believe — as some of the more militant subgroups do — that God meant for all Judea and Samaria [the West Bank] to be in the hands of Israel. … I’m sure there are hundreds of thousands of people that have never missed church on Sunday in Texas who believe it.”
Clinton also said Perry and Republicans in Congress are willing to capitulate to Israel on too many issues.
The former president summed up his views on the GOP perspective as, “‘You guys [Israel] do whatever you want — keep the West Bank. We’re coming back, we’ll have the White House and Congress, and we’ll let you do whatever you want.’”
I guess in Clinton's world, the only way to be pro-Israel is to be pro-'Palestinian.' Aren't you glad he's not President anymore? He sounds like Walt and Mearsheimer!
Question: Do you believe there should be a Palestinian state?
“I certainly have some concerns. The first step in any peaceful negotiation for a two-state solution for the Palestinians is to recognize the right of Israel’s existence. They have to denounce terrorism in both word and deed. And they have to sit down and negotiate with Israel directly. Anything short of that is a non-starter in my opinion.”
the Washington Post's Glenn Kessler "corrects" the governor. Kessler starts:
Perry’s statement had three parts: Palestinians must recognize Israel’s existence; they have to denounce terrorism; they have to negotiate with Israel directly. “Anything short of that is a non-starter in my opinion,” he declared. Perry is stuck in a time warp. He’s describing a situation that existed in the 1980s, not really today. (Some people might argue about some of that, but we will explain below.)
I do believe there's a time warp, but not in the way Kessler means.
As part of the 1993 Oslo accords, in an exchange of letters between then Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, the Palestine Liberation Organization met all of these conditions nearly 20 years ago. The letters are posted on the Web site of the Israeli Foreign Ministry. “The PLO recognizes the right of the State of Israel to exist in peace and security,” the letter from Arafat said. “The PLO commits itself to the Middle East peace process, and to a peaceful resolution of the conflict between the two sides and declares that all outstanding issues relating to permanent status will be resolved through negotiations. … Accordingly, the PLO renounces the use of terrorism and other acts of violence and will assume responsibility over all PLO elements and personnel in order to assure their compliance, prevent violations and discipline violators.” In 1996, by a vote of 504 to 54, the Palestinian National Council removed the sections in the Palestinian charter that had denied Israel’s right to exist.
Kessler's source is the Israeli Foreign Ministry site. But there's another paragraph later:
On December 14, 1998, the Palestinian National Council, in accordance with the Wye Memorandum, convened in Gaza in the presence of U.S. President Clinton and voted to reaffirm this decision.
In his letter to PM Rabin, Arafat also committed to this:
Consequently, the PLO undertakes to submit to the Palestinian National Council for formal approval the necessary changes in regard to the Palestinian Covenant.
After the 1996 vote, Professor Yehoshua Porat noted that other than the vote nothing was done. A motion was made to rewrite the Covenant but no action was taken. That is why PM Netanyahu insisted on another vote. To the best of my knowledge the Covenant has never been rewritten and no new Covenant has formally been adopted. Still even if there was a new Covenant, the beliefs that animate the document - that advocate the destruction of Israel - remain very much in force. We see this in the Palestinian media and textbooks. Article 20 of the Covenant asserts that there is no historical connection between Jews and the land of Israel. Mahmoud Abbas's continued refusal to state simply that Israel is a Jewish state shows that this is still a deeply held belief. Finally even if one believes that Fatah has sincerely accepted Israel's right to exist and denounces terrorism, Hamas hasn't. A few month ago, though, Abbas had no problem with formally agreeing to operate jointly with Hamas. The Fatah-Hamas unity agreement is a violation of any commitment to denounce terror. But focusing on the technical revocation of the Covenant, Kessler misleads. Subsequently Kessler writes:
The PLO has long recognized Israel’s existence — though not the militant group Hamas that controls the Gaza Strip, so maybe that’s what Perry meant. Israeli officials in recent years have also demanded Palestinian recognition of Israel as a “Jewish state” — which Palestinians have refused — but Perry did not make that distinction. Just to be sure, we sent Perry’s remarks to three experts on Middle East diplomacy — an Israeli, a Palestinian and an American. All three said he appeared to be remarkably uninformed.
As I pointed out, recognition Israel as a Jewish state, is indeed part of accepting Israel's right to exist; it is not some contrived new Israeli requirement. While Kessler acknowledges that Hamas is different from Fatah, he doesn't mention the Fatah-Hamas unity pact. I wonder who Kessler's experts are. But like the reporter, they seem to be remarkably uninformed. But I think his "time warp" comment is useful. Israel's Ambassador to Australia has written UN folly of Palestinians ignores progress post Oslo . The heart of Rotem's argument is:
While it has become fashionable for some to disparage the Oslo process, reality demonstrates that it has brought the Palestinians much closer to real independence and statehood than they were before the process began in 1993.Ongoing co-operation between Israel and the Palestinians in 40 spheres of daily life, including security, water and taxation matters, has led to relative calm in the West Bank and seen significant growth in the Palestinian economy, especially in the past few years.Before 1993, the Palestinians were not in control of a single square inch of the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Today, the Palestinian Authority controls all of the major Palestinian population centres in the West Bank and Hamas controls the Gaza Strip.
I've seen in a number of places that the Palestinians are going to the UN because they're still occupied (though practically speaking that is mostly not true) and it's as if there's a time warp where Israel has done nothing. In fact Israel has ceded territory, most Palestinians live under self-rule and it is the Palestinians who refuse to agree to a final deal with Israel. Yet because the Palestinians do not control all the territory they demand, Israel is therefore an illegitimate "occupier" deserving of to be ostracized as a pariah. But let's go into that time warp and go back 25 years - a nice round number - to 1986. What if I told you then that most Palestinians would live under their own governments in 25 years? What if I told you that a Likud Prime Minister would withdraw Israel from most of Hebron? What if I told you that despite continued terror, Israel would still continue with the peace process? What if I told you that following withdrawals from cities in Judea and Samaria, from southern Lebanon and from Gaza, terror attacks against would Israel increase? What if I told you that when Israel responded militarily to this increased terror, it would be condemned for responding disproportionately? What if I told you that when Israel built a wall to deter terror (and avoid a military response) Israel would then be accused of a land grab? What if I told that AIPAC, which supported every Israeli territorial compromise, would be described as "right wing" and an obstacle to peace? What if I told you that despite Israeli concessions and continued Palestinian incitement and rejectionism, Israel would be even more isolated in 2011 than in 1986? If I predicted all those things in 1986 you'd probably ask me who was supplying my hallucinogens. And yet every single one of them has come to be.
2) When apologies don't work
Yossi Klein Halevi on why blaming Israel for its isolation is wrong. He writes in No Apologies:
But in the present atmosphere Jews should resist the temptation for self-blame. Apology is intended to heal. Yet those demanding apologies of Israel aren’t seeking reconciliation, but the opposite—to criminalize the Jewish state and rescind its right to defend itself.If any apologies are forthcoming, they must be on the basis of facts. Erdogan began dismantling the Israeli-Turkish alliance well before the flotilla incident, which he then seized as a pretext to sever ties with Israel: his goal is not to restore Israeli-Turkish relations but to bolster his image in the Muslim world as the leader who humiliated Israel. Still, in the spirit of this season of penitence, Israel could offer Erdogan the following solution: We apologize for the loss of life, and you apologize for encouraging Turkish jihadists to violate Israel’s legal and moral siege against the terrorist regime in Gaza.So too with Egypt: Israel will apologize for the accidental killing of Egyptian soldiers—even though it’s not clear whether they were killed by Israeli fire or by a Palestinian suicide bomber—while Egypt apologizes for the atmosphere of government-instigated hatred against Israel, like the recent cover of one of Egypt’s leading magazines, October, which portrayed Netanyahu as Hitler.
3) Recognition
Stephen Walt, Glenn Greenwald and Mondoweiss have all praised Thomas Friedman's latest unhinged attack on Israel; specifically for blaming the "Israel lobby" for the lack of peace in the Middle East. Friedman should cherish those accolades alongside his Pulitzers.
Recently, I published a post about a blog war between Pam Geller of Atlas Shrugs and Ace of Spades. The subject of the war was Texas Governor Rick Perry - the current frontrunner for the Republican nomination for President - and his connections with Muslims and Islam in Texas.
Iranian-born Amil Imani says that he's not concerned about Perry's Islamic connection, because the sect to which Perry is connected - the Ismailis - is a marginal sect, and because the Islamic groups that have supported terrorist organizations have all attacked Perry. Imani goes on to show that the curriculum that was the subject of the blog war is not anti-Israel. In fact, if anything, it's pro-Israel.
The facts are that Perry has indeed had a cordial relationship with Muslims. Hundreds of thousands of Muslims live in the Lone Star State. And a governor is to serve every segment of the population in accordance with the law. I grant that. But, is Governor Perry being even-handed with Muslims, as he is expected to be, or is he favoring them?
He is reported to be particularly friendly with the Ismailis, a relatively small sect of Shi’a Islam. Is there something fishy about that? There are roughly twenty to thirty thousand Ismailis who live in Texas, a small percentage of the Muslims in the state. Besides, if Perry wanted to curry favor with Muslims, why would he hitch his wagon to the Ismailis? Ismailis are persecuted and castigated by major Islamic sects such as the Sunnis who rule Saudi Arabia and the Twelve Imamates Shi’a who run Iran.
The Ismailis are hardly a significant Islamic force, as compared to the other sects. They number around fifteen million in the world and are splintered into several sects. By far the largest of the Ismaili sects is the Nizari Ismaili with its followers adhering to dual loyalties. Their spiritual allegiance is to the Imam of the Time (Imam az Zaman) who is believed to be the interlocutor between Allah and the people. The position of the Imam az Zaman is hereditary from male to male, purportedly tracing back to Muhammad. Ismailis also owe allegiance to their countries as a fundamental obligation.
...
Although Perry’s cordial relationship with the Ismailis is indeed true, it hardly warrants alarm. What is more disturbing is the claim, nearly all of it originating from one source, that Governor Perry is supported by CAIR.
Facts show the contrary. There are reports that CAIR, the Islamist organization, was upset for not being invited to Perry’s Response prayer event in Houston. CAIR has teamed up with the ACLU protesting the exclusion.
And here's what Imani has to say about the Texas curriculum and Israel.
And with regards to the concern that the education curriculum Perry promoted is pro-Arab and against Israel, the evidence is exactly the opposite. The lesson on Israel reads:
“Since the end of World War One Palestine had been under the control of Great Britain, who at first welcomed the hardworking Jewish settlers. They made the most of the harsh conditions, bringing economic success to an area that had for a very long time been poor. Arab natives also welcomed the newcomers. But as the number of Jewish settlers increased and their economic success contrasted sharply with the economic backwardness of the Palestinian Arabs, the Arab attitude began to change.
Immediately, all its Arab neighbors declared war on Israel. As a result of this war, the territory of Israel expanded somewhat, and many Arab citizens of Israel fled to a small corner of Israel called the Gaza Strip. The Arab states refused to admit these refugees, preferring them to stay there as a testimony to the evil of the Jewish state. They are still there. These Arabs began calling themselves Palestinians and demanding a state of their own.”
I've said before that I do not want to declare for one Republican candidate or another right now. And with over a year to go until the election, I will stick to that. At least for now. But given what Imani has written, I will have no problem voting for Rick Perry if he is the Republican nominee. No problem at all.
Pam Geller has a lengthy post in which she deconstructs a Muslim curriculum that Rick Perry introduced as Texas governor. Pam thoroughly researched the post, and rather than expose how little I know about Perry's ties with Muslims in Texas, I suggest that you read the whole thing.
Pam's post led to a food fight in the conservative blogosphere between Pam and Ace of Spades. As an introvert when in a crowd, I can sympathize with Ace's description of his shyness, but I can't sympathize with this assessment of Islamic Jew hatred, which he dismisses as reading like Pam's blog:
(WILTSE’S ENTIRE SEGMENT ON ISRAEL): The conflict continues because the West, and the United States specifically, support Israel (an outpost of Western Civilization surrounded by Islamic Civilization), which Muslims generally dislike or hate.
Islamic enmity toward Israel is complicated, but hatred of Jews and Israel can be traced at least to the success of Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda starting in 1933.
1933? You've got to be kidding. Pam's right that the Jew-hatred is written into the Koran. In fact, ten days ago, we observed the 82nd anniversary (that would be 1929) of the Hebron massacre. Does this sound like someone who only started hating Jews in 1933? And by the way, the conflict doesn't continue because the West (and specifically the United States) supports Israel. The conflict continues because the Arabs continue in their desire to destroy the Jewish state and to murder all Jews (whether in Israel or elsewhere). Come on Ace - you're smarter than that.
Pam's charges should be answered by the Perry campaign - not by Ace - because if what Pam has described is what Perry believes, I'd rather find someone else to support (no, I haven't declared support for any candidate in the Republican primaries yet).
Finally, I agree with Stacy McCain that fights among ourselves are unproductive (Hat Tip: Lisa Graas who has more comments on the same issue).
And I've never met any of these people in the flesh.
Obviously, if Rick Perry remains a serious contender for the Republican nomination, I will look at this a lot more closely, but for now, here's a short blurb on Perry and the Jewish community.
To begin to remedy this oversight, I’d call your attention to two posts. One is by the estimable Kinky Friedman, who ran as a liberal third party candidate against Perry for the Texas governorship in 2006 (a race memorably covered for THE WEEKLY STANDARD by Matt Labash—see here). The world’s most famous Jewish cowboy (or so he says) explains why he would vote for Perry for president:
...
“As a Jewish cowboy (or ‘Juusshh,’ as we say in Texas), I know Rick Perry to be a true friend of Israel....
“A still, small voice within keeps telling me that Rick Perry’s best day may yet be ahead of him, and so too, hopefully, will be America’s.”
Don’t trust Kinky Friedman? (I don’t think I do either.) Then go to the website, mezuzahstore.com. There you can read about—you’ll have the opportunity to buy, for a mere $999.00—“The Rick Perry Mezuzah.” Let the folks at mezuzahstore.com explain why there is a Rick Perry mezuzah:
“Over the last few years we have been following with great interest the different stories of condominium boards making rules prohibiting Mezuzahs....
“Recently in June of this year (2011) Texas did something unique in passing a special law explicitly permitting the display of a Mezuzah up to 25 inches tall. This law overrides the authority of the Condo boards to ban Mezuzahs....
After the bill was passed by the Texas legislature, the only question was whether Governor Rick Perry would sign it into law. When he did, we came up with the idea of commissioning a large, Texas style Mezuzah in his honor....
“In order to push the envelope a bit we told them to make it 26" tall - one inch taller than is protected by the Texas law. They loved the idea and got right to work on it. It arrived in our store in Los Angeles only a few days before Governor Perry announced his presidential campaign. What timing!”
The endorsement of Kinky Friedman! A 26” tall mezuzah! As they say—what could go wrong?
UPDATE: I appear to have left out another “Perry, Good for the Jews” item. Perry urged Attorney General Eric Holder to enforce the Neutrality Act, effectively helping to prevent the latest Gaza-bound flotilla from setting sail.
The last item is actually the most impressive one. More about that here.
Daniel Greenfield has a lengthy analysis of Texas Governor Rick Perry's record on dealing with Islam and Muslims in his home state. He raises some valid concerns, but he also raises some concerns which I found irrelevant.
For instance, he worries that under Texas' Halal law (see signing above), which he admits is similar to Kosher laws in many states, militant Islamists may get to decide... whether meat is Halal or not.
Then there's the Texas Halal Law, which makes it a criminal offense to sell Halal and non-Halal meat in the same store, without specifically labeling the two, and of misrepresenting non-Halal meat as being Halal. In theory that's not such a big deal. Similar laws are on the books for Kosher meat. But the problem comes with the definition of what Halal is.
"Halal," as applied to food, means food prepared and served in conformity with Islamic religious requirements according to a recognized Islamic authority.
That comes from the bill's definition. And it raises the question of who is recognized as an Islamic authority. HB 470 leaves that question open. But in a dispute over which Islamic definition of Halal to use, the State of Texas would be forced to rule on a question of Islamic law. And to enforce that law. Texas would become an enforcer of Sharia.
Not really. Is he suggesting that the statute should have named an organization? That would violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, which is precisely why it's not done that way. Besides, the law is a consumer protection law, designed to make sure that there is some minimum standard. It doesn't preclude more than one authority and it doesn't mean that everyone has to accept one particular authority. There are plenty of 'rabbinic authorities' who have the right to advertise themselves as Kosher in New York and New Jersey (and Israel for that matter) whose Kashruth I would not trust.
On the other hand, this point raised by Greenfield bothers me more.
As some have pointed out, Perry is pro-Israel. So was Bush. It didn't stop him from toadying to Saudi Arabia and Abbas, or from pressuring Israel to make concessions to terrorists during his second term. It's possible to be pro-Israel and pro-Islam. And when the scales are weighed, then Islam comes first. If you doubt that, go look at what happened when Bush was pressured by the Saudis.
Well, yes. And unless we can elect someone like a Marco Rubio or Allen West - whose pro-Israel credentials are solid and long predate their running for President - we're going to see Presidents in the US who will come under pressure from the Arab world and who mayalmost certainly will cave in to it. The question is to what extent and how strongly they will pressure Israel as a result. Ronald Reagan is remembered as a solidly pro-Israel President and yet if you recall how he pressured Israel during and after Operation Peace for Galilee (the 1982 First Lebanon War), you might think otherwise.
At the end of the day, Greenfield has this right:
Whatever we say and do, he may be the inevitable candidate. The man who merges the strongest points of Huckabee and Romney into one populist friendly package. Who sells a pro-business compassionate conservatism that comes off as a low pain alternative to Obama. But before that it might not be such a bad thing to pore over the details of his record in office.
Perry is certainly an improvement on Obama. But in a race where Bachmann, Cain, Santorum, Palin and Gingrich have spoken out about the dangers of Islam-- everyone is gathering to cheer a man who celebrates it. Is this what the struggle of the last 3 years comes down to? Did we go through all this just to put Bush era policies back into office?
Well, yes. But Palin's not running yet, and Gingrich and Cain have no chance (I guess Daniel did a quick edit to take Pawlenty out). Are Bachmann and Santorum electable? Because much as I like them, I'd rather have Perry (or Romney for that matter) than four more years of Obama (something from which - in my view - neither the US nor Israel is likely to recover in our lifetimes).
Governor Perry urges legal action against Americans on flotilla
Governor Rick Perry (R-Tx) has urged Attorney General Eric Holder to take legal action against Americans participating in the flotilla of fools.
Perry wrote that he had information that American citizens were aboard two U.S.-flagged ships that plan to challenge the blockade on the Gaza Strip. He urged U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder to take legal steps to stop them from taking part, or to prosecute them if they make the attempt.
“The state of Israel is a friend and critical ally of the United States, and the only stable democracy in an increasingly unstable and hostile region,” wrote Perry, a vocal supporter of Israel who is considering a run for president in 2012. “These initiatives to breach Israel’s maritime blockade of the Gaza Strip is an unacceptable provocation.”
Under federal law, anyone who “prepares a means for, or furnishes the money for, or takes part in, any military or naval expedition” against a friendly country can be fined or jailed for three years. Perry also suggested that Holder prosecute the protesters for providing materials or assistance to a terrorist organization.
Indeed.
Israel Radio reports that the flotilla will not set out before the middle of next week.
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
At the Republican Presidential debate in South Carolina on Monday, former Texas Governor Rick Perry called a spade, a spade. He slammed Turkey for being governed by Islamic terrorists and urged NATO to expel the Islamic state. The Turks are furious (Hat Tip: Joshua I).
