Beyond the Cusp

November 11, 2017

Who Turns First, Britain or America

 

The United States and Great Britain both have conservative party leaders currently. Both Prime Minister May and President Trump have made mention of items concerning Israel. President Donald Trump stated early in his term when Prime Minister Netanyahu visited the White House, “With this visit, the United States again reaffirms our unbreakable bond with our cherished ally, Israel.” Speaking during events centered around the centennial celebration of the Balfour Declaration, British Prime Minister Theresa May stated concerning Arab and leftist calls for Britain to apologize for ever issuing the Balfour Declaration, “Balfour wrote explicitly that ‘nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country.’ So when some people suggest we should apologize for this letter, I say absolutely not.” One would be justified in believing that Israel was in solidly with both Great Britain and the United States, and they would be completely wrong.

 

President Donald Trump & British Prime Minister Theresa May

President Donald Trump & British Prime Minister Theresa May

 

Currently Israel is in a period of grace with both nations and this will continue very probably for as long as the two parties, the Republican Party in the United States and the Conservative Party in Great Britain, remain in power. For the United States that means holding the Presidency and in Great Britain it gets a little more complicated and requires being the major Party forming a coalition which requires giving money and other favors to other parties sometimes leading to altering the government position on issues. But there will eventually be a change in which a party holds the office of power in both nations, then what? All we need do is look at what the opposition parties and the leaders currently believe and extrapolate. Almost every nation in the developed world is facing a similar problem of the polarization of their electorate with the sides growing ever further apart and heading to their respective extremes. The more liberal parties are being controlled and populated with ever more leftists holding extreme leftist positions, the conservative parties are moving further right, and there are ever fewer people seemingly occupying the middle ground. It is getting to the point that what used to be a liberal and what used to be a conservative have become united as the center with the rest of the electorate at the fringes of the left and right having left the others behind. What would be most interesting would be the founding of a centrist party which held moderate views with a collection of liberal and conservative points with the emphasis on the few ideas both sides could agree to hold in uniting this party and allow things to play out from there. The other choice is for the electorate to be so far apart that whichever party wins an election is looked upon by the members of the other party not as just the other party but as their enemies as is the apparent situation with many leftists concerning President Trump.

 

Let us begin with the British and their Labour Party leader, Jeremy Corbyn. He too made some comments addressing the centennial commemoration of the Balfour Declaration. His commentary was quite different from the words of Prime Minister May. Leader of the Opposition Corbyn stated as quoted by the British media, “Let us mark the Balfour anniversary by recognizing Palestine as a step towards a genuine two-state solution of the Israel-Palestine conflict, increasing international pressure for an end to the fifty-year occupation of the Palestinian territories, illegal settlement expansion and the blockade of Gaza.” We will not address the mistakes and errors in his statements and instead offer this article Reflections on the Balfour Declaration to stand as the correcting statements of Jeremy Corbyn and numerous others who took to the media to spread falsehoods about the Balfour Declaration, a common practice in this world concerning the history around the founding of Israel. The single misstatement commonly made which we wish to correct is that Israel was designed to be a British colonial implant in the Middle East. Israel was the nativist dream of the indigenous Hebrews who were renamed by the Greeks and Romans after their largest remaining Tribe, the Tribe of Judah, which was eventually shortened from Judean to Judan to Ju, currently spelled Jew but pronounced as the original Roman spelling. Back to Mr. Corbyn, a man who has at times in his political career faced charges of anti-Semitism and who has admitted to being an anti-Zionist. Well before taking the leadership of the Labour Party, back in 2009 Jeremy Corbyn stated, “It will be my pleasure and my honor to host an event in Parliament where our friends from Hezbollah will be speaking. I’ve also invited friends from Hamas to come and speak as well. Unfortunately, the Israelis would not allow them to travel here so it’s going to be only friends from Hezbollah. The idea that an organization that is dedicated towards the good of the Palestinian people and bringing about long-term peace and social justice and political justice in the whole region should be labeled a terrorist organization by the British government is really a big, big historical mistake.” The fate of British-Israeli relations should Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters ever become the leadership of Britain was made obvious back in 2009 with this statement from which he has never distanced himself. So, Israel can count on the support of Britain likely for as long as the Conservative Party remains leading the ruling coalition and will face a hostile Britain should the Labour Party ever be the leasing party of a coalition.

 

Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn

Labour Leader Jeremy Corbyn

 

The United States is not very different than Great Britain, but let us investigate anyway. The Democrat Party had two politicians who sought that party’s nomination for President, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. We will start with Bernie Sanders, the one who lost the primaries but made an impressive showing despite his loss. The most telling facts about his positions concerning Israel were his appointees to critical positions. The first was his choice for Jewish outreach, a position considered important in Democrat politics, as it can be responsible for considerable funding opportunities. Bernie Sanders chose Simone Zimmerman who is a supporter of the extremist Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) – which the ADL named as one of America’s top 10 anti-Israel hate groups. This may not have been as critical a choice since many of the modern American Jews, especially the younger and more assimilated Jews, no longer have the close feelings for Israel which was the root of the Jewish community in previous elections as was notable in the Jewish support for President Obama in his reelection after there had been ample proof of his lack of support for Israel and obvious animosity for Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu. The other appointments made by Bernie Sanders which gave such insight were his two selections which he placed upon the Platform Committee. One of his appointments was Professor Cornel West, he has called the Israeli Prime Minister a war criminal but openly supports the BDS movement (boycott, divestment, and sanctions). Professor West has made his position on Israel clear and has been rumored to hold similar views concerning Jews. Mr. Sanders other choice was the longtime pro-Palestinian activist James Zogby. Mr. Zogby’s view of Jews and Israel are well documented and need not be referenced here. Bernie Sanders has proven repeatedly through actions and statements made his antipathy for Israel obvious.

 

Democrat Front Runners Hillary Clinton Bernie Sanders

Democrat Front Runners
Hillary Clinton
Bernie Sanders

 

The other Democrat was their candidate for President, Hillary Clinton. Max Blumenthal, the son of Sidney Blumenthal, both longtime Clinton friends, both have a history of questionable to outright malignant and vicious views concerning Israel. Then there are numerous others from the administration of President Obama and other friendships which could easily call any comments she has made to AIPAC and other Zionist Jewish groups into question. Still haunting Hillary was the reported quote which Paul Fray, then manager of Bill Clinton’s unsuccessful campaign in Arkansas, has verified (search text for Paul Fray) that she referred to him with an anti-Semitic curse despite Paul Fray not being Jewish, thus it was intended as an insult and not a comment on his personhood. There have been rumors for years about Clinton references to minorities using disparaging terms considered to be remnants from the “Old South” over the years which, as they were from the good party and not the evil party, were disregarded as inconsequential. The ugliest of these rumors came in a book by one of the former Secret Service who had served on her security detail before leaving the Secret Service.

 

The clinching condemnation of the Democrat Party and their Israel position came at the 2012 Democrat Convention. The easiest means of providing the evidence is the video below. They actually did refuse to accept Jerusalem as the Capital City of Israel and refused to include The Almighty in their Party Platform and had to resort to simply ignoring the feelings of the floor and place it in the platform over their rejections.

 

It is fairly obvious that except for a few of the old time Democrats, the new Democrat Party does not support Israel. This is something also greeted with enthusiasm by the new number two person in the Democrat Party, Keith Ellison. When Haaretz has a problem with a Democrat, that Democrat has an obvious Israel problem, and Keith Ellison earned that problem. We will clearly grant that Democrats such as Senator Chuck Schumer still support Israel, but many of the new, far left Democrats, not so much. Should the Democrats once again take the White House, Israel might be seeking some new friends.

 

The extremely delicate condition of the political support Israel faces in the world today is the very reason we keep insisting that Israel already be designing their next generation fighter and the facilities in which to manufacture said aircraft. The same foes for rifles, sidearms, ammunition, helicopters, ships and even submarines as none of the current Israeli suppliers should be considered as safe continuing into the Twenty First Century. Any nation which is dependent upon its military for its continued existence should not permit itself to ever become dependent upon foreign providers for its defense requirements. This has always been part of the policies of the United States, China and Russia and should become the policy for Israel as well. Israel most certainly does not lack the brain trust to design and produce all of her weapons requirements, and she has an economy easily sufficient for the manufacture of her entire military needs. The sooner the leadership in Israel recognizes these vital requirements and the facts making them all the more necessary, the brighter the future of Israel will become.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

1 Comment »

  1. Reblogged this on Oyia Brown.

    Like

    Comment by OyiaBrown — November 19, 2017 @ 8:42 AM | Reply


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.