Category Archives: Foreign Policy

Future Easters In Jerusalem? Don’t Bet On It

Foreign Policy, Glenn Beck, IMMIGRATION, Islam, Israel, Jihad, Judaism & Jews, Nationhood

If Christians value celebrating the Easter Holy Week in the Church of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem’s Old City—and it is majestic, believe me—they ought to pay more attention to the plans the Middle East Quartet is hatching for Israel. The United States, United Nations, European Union and Russia may push Israel to “withdraw to the [indefensible] armistice lines drawn up between the Jewish state and Jordan in 1949.” For the time being, the US has postponed a Quartet meeting, probably because Obama is already in bad odor with American on so many other issues.

Last Friday, Glenn Beck infuriated FoxNews’s Saudi shareholders by taking a symbolic, if unequivocal, stand for the Jew among the nations (yeah, yeah, I oppose foreign aid); for the civilized society (instead of the adjacent savage society). For “in Israel—foibles and frailties notwithstanding—the West has reclaimed a small spot of sanity in a sea of savagery, where enlightened western law prevails, and where Christians and Jews and their holy places are safe. (Muslims are always secure in western societies, Arab-Israelis too.).

When Jews commenced what must be the most remarkable modern-day national revival, Israel was a wasteland. Palestinians had done precious little for the land they purport to so love. As Ludwig von Mises (a utilitarian classical liberal), observed: For centuries the Near East has been a cultural backwater. “The Mohammedans”—to quote the delightfully archaic Mises—have for hundreds of years failed to produce so much as a “book of significance,” much less any scientific or other advancement.

Is there any wonder? The catalysts for creativity and prosperity are the ideas of individual freedom and freedom from the state. As Mises noted, these ideas are inimical to the cultures of the Near East, and the Islamic world in particular. Yet the “civilized” world is working diligently to shrink the civilized sphere that is Israel and expand the barbaric Palestinian Authority. (Question: What does unoccupied Palestinian land look like? Answer: Like Gaza.)

I must say that the rabbi Glenn entertained for his hour long “In Defense of Israel” show instantiated everything that is wrong with the American rabbinate, in particular, and American Jews, in general. Let me explain.

A woman in Beck’s audience asked the perspicacious question about the divide between American and Israeli Jews. Israelis and diaspora Jews: never the twain shall meet. But Rabbi Joseph Potasnik (a real “tembel”) gave her some tribal reply. Where does Glenn find these people? The rabbi was as ghettoized as any representative of CAIR.. Contrast that with the concision with which Dore Gold (a former Israeli ambassador) made his points.

American Jews are left-liberals, for the most, when it comes to the concerns of their fellow Americans, but rightist on matters Israel. In other words, hypocrites. They advocate a multicultural, immigration free-for-all, pluralist pottage for America. But when it comes to Israel, that’s another matter entirely.

As most left-liberal Jews who support Israel see it, Israel has the right to retain its creedal and cultural distinctiveness and its Jewish majority, but not so America. Israel should control immigration and guards its borders, but not the US. Ask this kind of Jew if he supports a “Right of Return” for every self-styled Palestinian refugee, and he’ll say, “Never. Are you insane? That’s a euphemism for Israel’s demise.”

The very thing he opposes for Israel, the left-liberal Jew champions for America: a global right of return to the US for the citizens of the world. When it comes to “returning” to America (but not Israel), humankind has a positive, manufactured right to venture wherever, whenever.

UPDATE II: Lawless In Libya (‘Allahu Akbar’)

Barack Obama, Bush, Constitution, Foreign Policy, Just War, Media

As Dr. Johnson said, “There is no settling the point of precedency between a louse and a flea.” Indeed, louse or flea — Obama is as much of a pest as was Bush. Still, in centralizing power in the executive branch, Obama may have surpassed Bush the younger. Here’s the latest in the annals of the Imperial Presidency (via BBC):

US President Barack Obama has secretly authorised covert assistance to rebels seeking to overthrow Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi, US media reports say.
He recently signed a document known as a “finding”, allowing support to the rebel groups, Reuters news agency and ABC News said.
Such “findings” are a common way for the president to authorise covert operations by the CIA.
The CIA and White House have both declined to comment on the reports. … The New York Times, citing American officials, said on Wednesday that the CIA has had operatives on the ground in Libya for several weeks. They are said to be gathering intelligence for air strikes and making contact with the forces fighting Col Gaddafi.

With the “rebels” in retreat, BHO will have to double his efforts in the Libyan theatre to avoid looking like he’s losing. Libya is about legacy more than Iraq and Afghanistan, wars Bush began.

Perhaps you’ve noticed this, but no sooner does the question of limits on presidential power intrude into the debate than the pundits and pols, who exist in symbiosis, start yammering about the top dog’s obligation to demonstrate “leadership.” “The American people,” say media elites, “want a strong leader.”

If they do, then they’re dumb. “Leadership” is presidential overreach euphemized.

Kneecap this president. Politically, that is.

UPDATE: I closed a blog post that “Cindy” responded to. So here below is her missive. As you can see, Cindy equates my feelings toward the American state with my feelings toward America the country. I would hope that the US is more than its pols, pundits, and foreign policy:

Cindy
2011/03/30 at 5:40 pm:

“Were you alive when Pan AM 103 exploded over the skies of Lockerbie Scotland? If you hate America, why are you living here? Leave! Go! Don’t let the door hit you in the ass on on the way out.”

UPDATE II (March 31): Watching the “rebels” on PBS, it’s hard to ignore the blood-curdling harangues of “Allahu Akbar” emitted by our buddies, bless them. Secular democracy rising.

Natural Law Vs. The War Powers Resolution

Constitution, Foreign Policy, Just War, libertarianism, Natural Law, Neoconservatism, War

Modern statutes like the War Powers Resolution, the Iraq Resolution, and the Use of Force Act do not displace the constitutional text and the framers’ intent. But even if the Constitution approved of Barack Obama’s subterfuge in the matter of war powers—the natural law does not. Because it is rational and rooted in the very nature of man, natural justice is immutably true; it is the ultimate guide to what is right or wrong. And it certainly informs the work of historian Tom Woods and the mission of the King Dude (aka Mike Church).

Woods and Church (against the Imperial Presidency) are sparring with talker Mark Levin (in support of it). Woods has repeatedly deferred to the work of Louis Fisher, senior specialist in separation of powers at the Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress, whose work I too galvanized during the Bush era war-powers abuse, in “UNNATURAL LAWLESSNESS” (here).

Tom Woods, The King Dude, and Fisher follow the framers and are thus formidable forces for liberty. To the debate between Messrs. Woods and Levin, I would add—and emphasize—only this point:

To the extent that the Constitution comports with natural law, to that extent it is good. To the extent that it does not jibe with natural justice, to that extent the Constitution is flawed. Even if the Constitution could be shown to support the many naturally illicit military forays conducted by successive American governments—it does not mean that these wars are/were just; only that they are/were legal. Contra classical natural law theory, legal positivism equates justice with the law of the state. However, while it may no longer guide most Americans, natural law must never cease to inform libertarians.

Palin Pants For War

Foreign Policy, Just War, Middle East, Military, Neoconservatism, Propaganda, Sarah Palin, UN, War

The women of the neoconnerie have been instrumental in keeping their fans tuned-out, turned-on, and hot for war. Neocons, in particular, enter a dangerous state of heightened emotional arousal as soon as war is around the corner. Sarah Palin’s war euphoria was on display during “On the Record,” with host Greta Van Susteren, when Palin practically panted for a show of even greater, and certainly grislier, force in Libya. (Here)

“America’s interests” in Libya, Mrs. Palin asserted, lie in either “killing or capturing” Qaddafi. Nothing else will do. If Obama does not order these deeds, “America’s interests” will have been compromised. A non sequitur, if you ask me. Sarah is presuming something not in evidence. If Qaddafi is not murdered, how will this meshuga (here) “seek revenge” here in the USA? Flood our markets with gaudy gowns? Hinder the housing market with his spacious tents?

A good war must also inspire: both Greta and Sarah were agreed. Sarah expressed disappointment that the president didn’t deliver an inspirational war speech. (Transcripts) Following the lead of other countries—“getting in the back of the bus,” as she put it—doesn’t do it for her; doesn’t inspire.

You ask: Can the US not LEAD and INSPIRE the world with its productivity, products; its professionals, and their inventions? Forget about it. Mrs. Palins, like all neocons, conflates the American state—its war making proclivities and powers, in particular—with national greatness.

Like many a criminal, the act of committing crimes (in this case vicariously via the state apparatus) further lowers the war monger’s inhibitions. This base condition accounts for the tolerance for atrocities, and shameless, atavistic call for assassinations and killings.

In her war euphoria, Sarah even forgot that we’re broke, in hock to the tune of $14 trillion and growing. In wondering why Libya, she boasted: “America could intervene with our power and our resources in many other areas.” We can afford to? Really?

By the way, I have a feeling that Obama’s casus belli, embedded in the following excerpt from his speech, will turn out to be a lot like WMD in Iraq:

In the face of the world’s condemnation, Gaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. The water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misratah was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assault from the air.
Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean.