Category Archives: Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

Clinton To Israeli-Palestinians: Stop Breeding!

Hillary Clinton, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Justice

Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tells the Palestinians living in Israel proper to curtail procreational so as not to infringe on their Jewish neighbors. And while they’re practicing family planning, Clinton commanded close-on-a-million Israeli-Palestinians to refrain from adding a room to the family home, for the same reason.

I’m sorry. I got confused. Clinton’s commands apply ONLY to Jews living in Palestinian territory, not to Palestinians living in Jewish territory. But you’ve benefited from that little exercise, have you not?

Israeli Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman certainly gets it. He told Clinton, “NO!”—no to her imperious demands that Israelis “‘completely’ halt activity in West Bank settlements.” “Everywhere people are born, people die, and we cannot accept a vision of stopping completely the settlements. We have to keep the natural growth,” Lieberman said during his talks with the secretary of state in Washington.

Against this backdrop, William Barr, columnist for the Paris Post Intelligencer, has surveyed some of my writing on Israel for his readers. Barr is a writer who bothers to do research and quote his subject accurately; now that’s fair treatment I’m not often subjected to.

Bibi Can Bitch Slap Barack, Easily

Barack Obama, Foreign Policy, History, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Middle East

I repeat myself but, “Patriots for a sane American foreign policy ought to encourage all America’s friends, Israel included, to push back and do what is in their national interest, not ours. Those of us who want the U.S. to stay solvent—and out of the affairs of others—recognize that sovereign nation-states that resist, not enable, our imperial impulses, are the best hindrance to hegemonic overreach.”

Retired Israeli Ambassador, and BAB A-Lister, Yoram Ettinger reminds us, with reference to history, that Israel fared best when it resisted American pressure. He does it with the a dash of that unique Israeli humor. Enjoy!

Obama Pressures? No Need to Panic!
Yoram Ettinger, Ynet, June 5, 2009

President Obama’s speech in Cairo intensified psychological pressure on the Jewish State. Obama erodes Israel’s special standing in the US. He has adopted evenhandedness and moral equivalence toward Israel (a staunch democratic ally, a role model of counter-terrorism) and toward the Palestinian Authority (an ally of US’ enemies, a role model of terrorism and hate-education). He ignores Israel’s ancient history, suggesting that the justification for its existence is rooted in the Holocaust. And, he has transformed “Settlements” into the crux of the Arab-Israel conflict, although Palestinian terrorism and Arab wars against Israel preceded the 1948 establishment of the Jewish State and the 1968 establishment of the first “Settlement.”

Obama hopes that Prime Minister Netanyahu will succumb to psychological pressure. But, he cannot break Israel’s back or sever US-Israel special relationship.

Notwithstanding the Cairo Speech, the resolution of the Palestinian issue is not Obama’s top priority. The national security of the US and the political future of Obama do not depend on the fate of the “Settlements.” Obama was elected, primarily, in order to stop the monthly increase of unemployment by over 500,000 persons, the loss of homes by millions of Americans, the collapse of credit and consumption, the disintegration of American banks and the destruction of large and small American businesses. In addition, President Obama is challenged by the US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the potential volcano which could erupt following the evacuation of Iraq, the nuclear threat posed by North Korea and Iran, a potential takeover of nuclear Pakistan by the Taliban, a possible Pakistan-India eruption, imperialist Russia and China, etc. If Obama were practically – and not just rhetorically – preoccupied with the Palestinian issue, then he would resemble a person preoccupied with tumbleweeds, while being smothered by a West Texas sandstorm.

The unique covenant between the US and the Jewish State has never evolved around the Arab-Israeli conflict. It has evolved around shared values (which precede 1948 and even 1776), joint interests and mutual threats. Between 1948 and 1992, all Israeli Prime Ministers rejected US prescriptions/ultimatum for the resolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict. The 1957 withdrawal from Sinai was an exception. However, US-Israel strategic cooperation catapulted to unprecedented levels as a result of regional reality and Israel’s steadfastness in face of pressure. For example, two unprecedented strategic memoranda of understandings were concluded in November 1983 and April 1988, in spite of brutal US pressure on Israel during the First Intifada and the First Lebanese War. These strategic memoranda were signed due to Israel’s unique contribution to vital US national security interests: war on Islamic terrorism, ballistic missile defense, restraining the USSR and regional rogue regimes, sharing of critical intelligence and battle experience, upgrading of defense and commercial industries, etc. In fact, a critical mass among the US public, Congress and even the Administration appreciates the Jewish State – irrespective of “Settlements” – for sparing the US the need to deploy tens of thousands of US military personnel and to invest annually mega-billion dollars in the eastern flank of the Mediterranean.

This 2009 psychological pressure is dwarfed by past practical and brutal pressure, which was exerted by the US and by the international community and was fended off by Israel’s Prime Ministers. In 1948, the Department of State and the Pentagon imposed a military embargo and threatened to add economic sanctions, in order to force Ben Gurion to refrain from a declaration of independence and to accept a UN Trusteeship. The Administration demanded an end to “occupation” in the Negev, the internationalization of Jerusalem and the absorption and compensation of Palestinian refugees. In 1967, President Johnson warned Prime Minister Eshkol: “If you shall act alone (in pre-empting an Egyptian-Syrian-Jordanian strike) you shall remain alone.” In 1981, President Reagan threatened Prime Minister Begin with a military embargo and a severe rupture should Israel bomb Iraq’s nuclear reactor. The US was joined by the USSR, Europe, the UN and Israel’s own Peres, Weitzman and chiefs of Mossad and Military Intelligence, who all opposed the bombing. Israel’s Prime Ministers withstood massive US and global pressure, with relatively-limited economic, military and diplomatic resources at their disposal.

A US President is a very powerful leader, but he heads one of three branches of government, which are totally independent of each other [theoretically, at least]. The US president is substantially constrained by an elaborate system of checks and balances. He does not appoint congressional leadership or candidates for congressional seats. Congress – which possesses the “Power of the Purse” – has been a consistent bastion of support for the Jewish State. The loyalty of the legislators is first and foremost to their constituents and to the Constitution, including an effective Separation of Power. Therefore, most Democrats opposed Obama’s appointment of Charles Freeman to head the National Intelligence Council. Most Democrats opposed President Clinton’s free trade initiatives, over 30 Democratic House Members voted to impeach Clinton. A Democratic majority in both chambers did not prevent a failed 1992-1994 presidency and a Democratic collapse at the 1994 election. Moreover, the relative weight of Congress rises during economic crises and the assertiveness and independence of legislators grow as congressional campaign season (which will be launched in September 2009) approaches.

Will Prime Minister Netanyahu retreat in the face of President Obama’s psychological pressure, or will he leverage the strategic and political reality in the Middle East and in the US for the mutual benefit of both the US and the Jewish State?

**
Of course, I maintain that cutting the Gordian Knot—that is foreign aid to Israel—would be the best thing for the Jewish State.

Update VI: Beware Of ‘Absolut’ Libertarian Lunacy (& In Praise Of One Lunatic)

Classical Liberalism, Ethics, IMMIGRATION, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Natural Law, Ron Paul

Update III: The excerpt is from my new column, now on “Taki’s Magazine. I’m not even going to post the title the editor gave it. The attendant disclaimer reads: “This outrageous title is the product of the festering imagination of the editor, not the author.”
Update IV (June Eighth): Mr. Reavis did NOT approve of the poor column’s latest title, as you can see from the estimable Judge’s comment hereunder. Writers are pretty powerless in this respect.
Update V (June 9): The column’s title has, thankfully, been changed.

“About certain moral (and legal) matters, patriotic, freedom-loving Americans agree instinctively. For example:

When brave, border patrolmen Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean shot an illegal alien drug dealer in the derriere, they were defending their state, country and countrymen.

For hastening the descent into hell of two career criminals, who had broken into the country before breaking and entering at the home adjacent to his, Joe Horn—another fine Texan—is the best of neighbors.

Another acid test is the case of Frank Ricci, a firefighter from New Haven, Connecticut. Ricci was denied a promotion because he bested all the blacks in the department on a test 77 other candidates took. City officials didn’t like the results, so they voided the test, and put the promotion on hold until a less sensitive test could be developed—one that better screened-out proficiency and ability.

The individual with a healthy moral compass will agree that Ricci was wronged. What is licit or illicit in the natural law is inescapably obvious in the other vignettes as well.

But not to libertarian deviationists (by which I mean deviants, as opposed to dissenters).” …

The complete column, previously “Beware Of ‘Absolut’ Libertarian Lunacy,” is now on Taki’s, differently titled by the editor.

Which is where you can find it every week. Miss the weekly column on WND? Catch it on Taki’s Magazine, every Saturday.

Update (June 6):In Praise Of One Lunatic. The “KNAPPSTER,” Tom Knapp, and I have had a fractious exchange in the Comments Section. I’ve posted two of Tom’s comments, starting with a highly unpleasant post, aimed at my person. Not unpredictably, Tom was most injured by my correct claim that his newsletter, which I dubbed a libertarian organ, and which I read regularly for its news items (not its commentary), has not featured my column in years.

Somewhat disingenuously, Tom disagreed, posting a list of my blog posts and columns on his site, claiming they were featured recently in the newsletter he mails out to thousands of libertarians.

(This was followed by an ugly personal note, calling me a liar, but I will not be dragged down by purveyors of smut.)

Now, I know and remember everything I’ve ever written. Check the dates on these posts; they are all old, exactly as I asserted. I repeat: These are all older column and blog posts.

The most recent entry is from 2006 (three from 2007, although “Tasers R Us” has vanished from the list; “Don’t Tase Me Big Bro,” which I would have thought Tom would love, never made it onto the list, as far as I can tell).

Here are the dates of each individual post on the Rational Review’s newsletter: 11.16.05, 06.22.06, 09/11/06, 06.11.07, 11.16.05, 11.27.06, 12.04.06, 08.24.06, 11.20.06, 06.28.06, 06.28.06, 03.28.06, 03.15.06, 09.04.06, 12.23.05, 03.22.06, 10.19.06, 08.07.06, 01.31.06, 05.23.06, 10.28.05, 09.27.06, 03.06.06, 02.08.06, 01.17.07, 07.02.07, 09.06.06, 01.20.06, 04.25.06, 12.11.06, 12.20.06.

It’s a shame, because I’ve said things in the cause of freedom—my cause and Tom’s cause—few libertarians have dared to (and better).

Just two Examples:

1) My hardcore propertarian defense of Michael Vick (other libertarian dog lovers offered a watered-down, states’-rights defense. Sean Hannity could not find a defense such as mine, which is how I made it onto his radio show on that rare occasion).

2) “They’re Coming For Your Kids”

Now, in his defense (I try and be immutably fair; although Tom is fighting dirty these days), the KNAPPSTER I once knew is quite a rare creature among libertarian cults. He has always appreciated contrarians and the vitality they bring to the movement. Rare. Like mainstreamers, libertarians spend a lot of time huddling in their purist corners, enforcing party lines, following a Cult Leader, and peering at the contrarian from behind heavily fortified ideological parapets.

Again: The KNAPPSTER I knew was not like this. Yes, he got heated about his perspective, but he never barred mine.

On the other hand, libertarian women folk can be real Stalinists in their approach to someone like myself. Last I was kicked off a distribution list it was by one such Siren of intolerance.

I am hopeful that some positive has come from this over-heated exchange, and that Tom, who doesn’t appreciate being perceived by readers (on this humble forum) as less than open-minded, will feature my column on his informative newsletter. He has not done so for a few years, as you can see from the dates the columns and post carry.

In that spirit, I’d also like to credit the KNAPSTER I knew (I do hope his women folk, and here I include women with the YY chromosomal makeup, have not gotten to him on this front) with being unique among (lower case L) libertarian anarchists in advancing one of the most cogent defenses of Israel. (I hope he will send me a link to that splendid tract.)

Peace (and give us a smile, KNAPPSTER).

Update II: Here is “Context is everything: American libertarians and Israel, part 1,” forwarded by Tom.

The KNAPPSTER, I believe, is cracking a grin. We’re good again.

Update VI (May 26): Postscript. I’ve been collegial and fair to a fault in my dealings with one Thomas L. Knapp, who has not carried any of my columns in his “newsletter” since this exchange—despite saying he would. My integrity tends to bring out the best in otherwise innately nasty pieces of work. In the case of this individual, my ability to elevate worked fleetingly—only while he was exposed to it during the exchange on this blog.

Update VI: Beware Of 'Absolut' Libertarian Lunacy (& In Praise Of One Lunatic)

Classical Liberalism, Ethics, IMMIGRATION, Israel, Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, Left-Liberalism And Progressivisim, libertarianism, Natural Law, Ron Paul

Update III: The excerpt is from my new column, now on “Taki’s Magazine. I’m not even going to post the title the editor gave it. The attendant disclaimer reads: “This outrageous title is the product of the festering imagination of the editor, not the author.”
Update IV (June Eighth): Mr. Reavis did NOT approve of the poor column’s latest title, as you can see from the estimable Judge’s comment hereunder. Writers are pretty powerless in this respect.
Update V (June 9): The column’s title has, thankfully, been changed.

“About certain moral (and legal) matters, patriotic, freedom-loving Americans agree instinctively. For example:

When brave, border patrolmen Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean shot an illegal alien drug dealer in the derriere, they were defending their state, country and countrymen.

For hastening the descent into hell of two career criminals, who had broken into the country before breaking and entering at the home adjacent to his, Joe Horn—another fine Texan—is the best of neighbors.

Another acid test is the case of Frank Ricci, a firefighter from New Haven, Connecticut. Ricci was denied a promotion because he bested all the blacks in the department on a test 77 other candidates took. City officials didn’t like the results, so they voided the test, and put the promotion on hold until a less sensitive test could be developed—one that better screened-out proficiency and ability.

The individual with a healthy moral compass will agree that Ricci was wronged. What is licit or illicit in the natural law is inescapably obvious in the other vignettes as well.

But not to libertarian deviationists (by which I mean deviants, as opposed to dissenters).” …

The complete column, previously “Beware Of ‘Absolut’ Libertarian Lunacy,” is now on Taki’s, differently titled by the editor.

Which is where you can find it every week. Miss the weekly column on WND? Catch it on Taki’s Magazine, every Saturday.

Update (June 6):In Praise Of One Lunatic. The “KNAPPSTER,” Tom Knapp, and I have had a fractious exchange in the Comments Section. I’ve posted two of Tom’s comments, starting with a highly unpleasant post, aimed at my person. Not unpredictably, Tom was most injured by my correct claim that his newsletter, which I dubbed a libertarian organ, and which I read regularly for its news items (not its commentary), has not featured my column in years.

Somewhat disingenuously, Tom disagreed, posting a list of my blog posts and columns on his site, claiming they were featured recently in the newsletter he mails out to thousands of libertarians.

(This was followed by an ugly personal note, calling me a liar, but I will not be dragged down by purveyors of smut.)

Now, I know and remember everything I’ve ever written. Check the dates on these posts; they are all old, exactly as I asserted. I repeat: These are all older column and blog posts.

The most recent entry is from 2006 (three from 2007, although “Tasers R Us” has vanished from the list; “Don’t Tase Me Big Bro,” which I would have thought Tom would love, never made it onto the list, as far as I can tell).

Here are the dates of each individual post on the Rational Review’s newsletter: 11.16.05, 06.22.06, 09/11/06, 06.11.07, 11.16.05, 11.27.06, 12.04.06, 08.24.06, 11.20.06, 06.28.06, 06.28.06, 03.28.06, 03.15.06, 09.04.06, 12.23.05, 03.22.06, 10.19.06, 08.07.06, 01.31.06, 05.23.06, 10.28.05, 09.27.06, 03.06.06, 02.08.06, 01.17.07, 07.02.07, 09.06.06, 01.20.06, 04.25.06, 12.11.06, 12.20.06.

It’s a shame, because I’ve said things in the cause of freedom—my cause and Tom’s cause—few libertarians have dared to (and better).

Just two Examples:

1) My hardcore propertarian defense of Michael Vick (other libertarian dog lovers offered a watered-down, states’-rights defense. Sean Hannity could not find a defense such as mine, which is how I made it onto his radio show on that rare occasion).

2) “They’re Coming For Your Kids”

Now, in his defense (I try and be immutably fair; although Tom is fighting dirty these days), the KNAPPSTER I once knew is quite a rare creature among libertarian cults. He has always appreciated contrarians and the vitality they bring to the movement. Rare. Like mainstreamers, libertarians spend a lot of time huddling in their purist corners, enforcing party lines, following a Cult Leader, and peering at the contrarian from behind heavily fortified ideological parapets.

Again: The KNAPPSTER I knew was not like this. Yes, he got heated about his perspective, but he never barred mine.

On the other hand, libertarian women folk can be real Stalinists in their approach to someone like myself. Last I was kicked off a distribution list it was by one such Siren of intolerance.

I am hopeful that some positive has come from this over-heated exchange, and that Tom, who doesn’t appreciate being perceived by readers (on this humble forum) as less than open-minded, will feature my column on his informative newsletter. He has not done so for a few years, as you can see from the dates the columns and post carry.

In that spirit, I’d also like to credit the KNAPSTER I knew (I do hope his women folk, and here I include women with the YY chromosomal makeup, have not gotten to him on this front) with being unique among (lower case L) libertarian anarchists in advancing one of the most cogent defenses of Israel. (I hope he will send me a link to that splendid tract.)

Peace (and give us a smile, KNAPPSTER).

Update II: Here is “Context is everything: American libertarians and Israel, part 1,” forwarded by Tom.

The KNAPPSTER, I believe, is cracking a grin. We’re good again.

Update VI (May 26): Postscript. I’ve been collegial and fair to a fault in my dealings with one Thomas L. Knapp, who has not carried any of my columns in his “newsletter” since this exchange—despite saying he would. My integrity tends to bring out the best in otherwise innately nasty pieces of work. In the case of this individual, my ability to elevate worked fleetingly—only while he was exposed to it during the exchange on this blog.