Beyond the Cusp

April 1, 2017

What Good is Bipartisanship if One Side Supports Your Demise?

 

The AIPAC convention ended last week and the eighteen-thousand plus attendees returned home hopefully more invigorated, excited and informed about Israel, the challenges facing the Jewish State and the means by which they can best support the State of Israel. Unfortunately that may not be the case. One of the goals of AIPAC over the years has been to continue to be nonpartisan leading to bipartisan support for Israel. This has worked admirably well since 1967 when the United States took an interest in pursuing an actively supportive roll with Israel yet still continued its arms embargo which had been in effect almost immediately after granting Israel recognition in May of 1948 until 1968 when, with strong support from Congress, President Lyndon Baines Johnson approved the sale of Phantom fighters to Israel, establishing the precedent for US support for Israel’s qualitative military edge over its neighbors. This has little effect though on American support for the militaries of several allied Arab nations who potentially could have been Israeli enemies in future hostilities. Since 1968 Israel had received bipartisan support with politicians from both sides of the aisle in the Congress acting and voting favorably in matters concerning Israel. There have been some individual actions which placed this support into something conditional on Israel committing herself in a manner which the United States required for their support.

 

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu when Addressing AIPAC

Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu when Addressing AIPAC

 

The most famous came during the Yom Kippur War when President Nixon, under urging and pressure from Secretary of State Kissinger claiming that this action would force the Israelis to be more malleable and easily controlled, initially denied resupply of desperately needed armaments by the Israeli Defense Forces. When Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir called President Nixon and informed him that Israel without resupply might necessarily have to fall onto the Samson Option, a suspected but never actually defined last ditch effort if facing being overrun, expressed the desperate need that President Nixon released the needed armaments. This led to another problem as numerous European nations refused United States requests to allow the resupply planes landing and refueling rights as they also were refusing to assist Israel and were refusing to assist the United States in assisting Israel. Still, the planes did get through and Israel survived the surprise attack on Yom Kippur which almost resulted in an Israeli defeat. It need be pointed out that one Israeli defeat and there will be no Israel and the resulting toll of Jewish deaths would be unprecedented as today there are over six-million Jews living in Israel. There were rumors that another reason Nixon sent the arms was that Israel had opened the silo covers from their missiles and this was picked up by a geosynchronous spy satellite stationed over the war zone, otherwise meaning over Israel as she was attacked by Egypt and Syria with additional support by expeditionary forces from Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Cuba, and Morocco and additional air support from Libya as well as a North Korean deployed MiG-21 squadron to Bir Arida to protect Egypt’s south.

 

IDF Air Force Phantom II F-4E

IDF Air Force Phantom II F-4E

 

Israel continued to receive bipartisan support from the Congress and a good amount of such remains to this day. There have been times when the Republicans wavered especially during the late 1980’s and into much of the 1990’s as a response to tepid at best Jewish support for Republicans. With the rise of the Evangelical Christian support for Israel, the Republican support has returned to a robust level. The weakening support currently lies with the Democrats who have come to figure basically who are the Jews going to support as the vast majority of American Jews are liberal to far leftists. There are exceptions mostly amongst the Orthodox and religious Zionist Jews who are supportive of the Republicans. So the Democrats simply take their seventy-five plus percent support by the Jews as a given for which they actually need not support Israel and these Jews will continue to support them. This is further proven by the wavering of Leftist Jews in their support for Israel, many have actively become supporters of the Palestinians at the cost of Israel. They have come to view Israel to be a right wing governed stronghold and are against Prime Minister Bibi Netanyahu, Jewish Home Chairman Naftali Bennett, the Justice Minister and second chair in Jewish Home Ayelet Shaked as well as the remainder of the Likud Party, the religious parties and the Zionist parties as opposed to their preferred solution of removing all Jews from Judea and Samaria as well as much of Jerusalem and giving all this for a Palestinian Arab state and not necessarily an unarmed Arab State. They view Israel as too religious, too Jewish and Torah observant and are extremely disgruntled over Israeli insistence on recognizing Torah observant Jewishness and not accepting Reform, Reconstructionist, Alternative Orthodox and some Conservative Rabbis’ conversions because they do not meet the more stringent Israeli requirements for conversions within Israel. These Jews have decided if Israel refuses to allow American Jews to dictate policy and what government they can have, then they refuse to support these ungrateful Israeli Jews; sad but it is true.

 

This wavering by the Democrat Party in many instances not being supportive of the Israeli government and the lack of support from a large segment of Jewish Democrats, there are some who question if this bipartisanship is working. This came particularly to the fore when President Obama challenged AIPAC and demanded they choose between the Israeli position and that of the Obama Administration pushing that support for Israel could hinge on their accepting the President’s position on the solution which favored the Palestinian Arab position and placed all the onus on Israel to bend over backwards and make all the concessions receiving nothing in return. AIPAC buckled to the pressure from the White House and in the process sacrificed their Zionist beliefs placing them on the altar of political correctness and then making a fire sacrifice burning them up as the President demanded. It was a sad thing to watch and to behold what was pledged to be a pro-Israel group turns on their pledges to Israel in the name of bipartisanship as they feared losing Democrat support. One could ask is Democrat support actually necessary if it requires forsaking your guiding principles? That is where the ZOA (Zionist Organization of America) and its President, Morton A. Klein, did Israel and Zionism proud when the ZOA faced similar pressures and simply stood as Zionist and let the consequences be what they may. Sometimes this is what supporting a cause requires, stating your principles and standing by them as without a principled core, what does an organization have to show, bipartisanship without a core, that is meaningless.

 

Zionist Organization of America President Morton A. Klein

Zionist Organization of America President Morton A. Klein

 

AIPAC will soon face a crisis and it is rushing towards them as if it were a runaway train without any brakes or anyone in the cab. The leftists and liberals, especially those in the Democrat Party, are going to press for AIPAC to stand with them against President Trump and his Administration with their Israeli policies. This will be a do or die decision for the leadership in AIPAC. The Democrats are basically going to give them an, either you are with us or against us, proposition. This will put bipartisanship completely out of the equation as they will be facing a choice as to which side they are going to support, President Trump and Israel or the Democrat Party, its leftists who have run off with the party and the Palestinian Arabs. This will be a one or the other and as the vast majority of Jews currently are Democrats, this will be an even more difficult choice as much of their finances come from these Jews and their support for many will hinge on AIPAC’s choice. The true Zionists who still remain in the Democrat Party, likely because their Congressperson still supports Israel and they refuse to see the truth of the heart of the part having turned against Israel, will remain loyal to AIPAC no matter which way they decide. What is actually in the balance will be possibly the depth of Trump and his Administration to their pledged support for Israel. After all, if AIPAC stands against what President Trump and his people are hoping to accomplish vis-à-vis Israel, would that not point to the fact that maybe they are going about things all wrong? AIPAC represents presumably the pro-Israel position and if they are opposing your actions, well, what does that say. Additionally, what kind of signals are sent when the two presumably most pro-Israel groups stand in opposition to one another with ZOA supporting Trump and all he is attempting to accomplish while AIPAC stand in opposition. We will see what happens but there is one last warning we must present AIPAC with, this is one decision that not deciding is deciding because as far as these leftist Democrats and their Jewish compatriots, either you are actively with them or you are their enemy, there are no half measures and no bipartisan positions, you have to choose or they will choose for you. Further, even if you choose and even one of your ranking members steps out of the strict lines these people will place around you, then you will be called to answer because they will not couch any discrepancies from their approved positions. Once in, you have to be all the way in and no hedging your position or backtracking will be permitted and anyone dissenting in the slightest will, you will be demanded to reprimand and depart their company.

 

Some final thoughts on this subject as a whole and independent of any AIPAC, ZOA or other political actions type lobbying groups. The far left has made their choice. They have decided, as they historically always have, that they want an end to the Judeo-Christian ethic and what Hitler referred to as the Jew Conscience and Jew Morality which he promised to free the world from. This is why initially, before Germany declared war on the United States, people like Charles Lindbergh, William Randolph Hearst, Joseph Kennedy, John Rockefeller, Andrew Mellon, Allen Dulles as well as Vice President of General Motors Graeme K. Howard supported Adolf Hitler as well as Generalissimo Francisco Franco and Benito Mussolini as it appeared that their fascist methods were working extremely well for business and manufacturing. What they may or may not have known was that much of the success was making the tools and weapons of war which became evident later in the 1930’s as World War II started. When this resolute means for ridding society and the governance of Judeo-Christian ties, their next great love affair was with the Communists. Interestingly enough the Communists also were promising an end to the Judeo-Christian ethic and the strangling influence it had on their plans. The leftists have always been kindly favorable of hedonism which runs afoul of the Judeo-Christian lifestyle of staunch conservatism and a religious and proper restriction on one’s personal actions. The Communists also failed to rid the world, especially the West, of the Judeo-Christian ethos and it too fell by the wayside. Well, not to be left without a champion who can rid them of the Judeo-Christian ethos; the leftists of today have allied with Islam. They are of the belief that once Islam has rid the world of Judeo-Christianity as a driving force and has put in place a dictatorial governance, another item the leftists find attractive and also another reason they loved Fascism and Communist and their centralized power in the government, the leftists reason that they can simply take control of the levers of power and transform Islam to fit their ideal and ideas. They believe that their “superior education” and “superior experience in governance” and their “general superiority in all things” will allow them to simply transform Islam into adopting their leftist principles and morals (or lack thereof) thus finally establishing their new world order. What they are missing in their plan is exactly how they will take over Islam and change a religion and its principles and strict moral code which have resisted change for much of its fourteen hundred years of existence. Granted that Islam had a period where it had settled from constant war and conquest and was quite agreeable and accepting of non-Muslims, especially Jews and Christians. There was the Golden Age of Islam (725 – 1260 approx.) where a liberated view of Islam permitted a pluralistic society and free exchange of information and a general acceptance of science and knowledge from outside of the Quran. This liberalism and the permitting of extra-Quranic knowledge came crashing to an end with two distinct and distant events. The first was the arrival of the Mongols from the east and the final was the rise of the Spanish under King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella and the purification of Spain. With the military defeats came the belief that Islam must return to the very roots which carried it forth originally from the Arabian Peninsula and a strict following of the teachings of Muhammad as portrayed in the Quranic texts and the Hadiths. This has continued ever since with the repeated expectation that this solution will work, Allah willing. They may finally be correct as Europe is being gifted to the purveyors of Islam on a golden platter. The leftists will allow the invasion and conquest without use of actual military but simply by replacement and superiority of numbers. The unfortunate thing for the Europeans will be that the Muslims may prove to be impatient and resort to civil warfare to speed the process rather than waiting for the inevitable to simply occur. This may prove to be their undoing as it may awaken the entirety of Europe before the Muslims have sufficient numbers to win outright and thus lead to a horrific conflict as Europe either saves itself from Islam and rediscovers having children in the process or Islam succeeds in speeding the process and the infidel are purged in the process. Either resolution will not benefit the leftists as their plan is extremely flawed for any number of reasons, but that has always been the case.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

April 25, 2014

U.S. State Department Allies with Israel Over Hamas

Many the Israel supporter has likely spent a fair amount of their lives mentally yelling at, actually cursing over or otherwise protesting in the extreme positions and actions originating from the United States State Department towards Israel; particularly over making unilateral concessions to the Palestinians for the displeasure of having their temporary company in what everybody, even the State Department, know will be futile negotiations. Imagine the surprise followed almost immediately with glee, providing one did not simply pass out upon hearing the news, when State Department spokesperson Jen Psaki issued an Israeli supporting statement to the press. Ms. Psaki statement stated, “It’s hard to see how Israel can be expected to negotiate with a government that does not believe in its right to exist.” All of this fuss and apparent change of position by the State Department is all over Mahmoud Abbas and the Palestinian Authority having agreed and signed a unifying agreement with Hamas with all the particulars to be worked out and elections held within the coming weeks and months. Other than the, what some people might claim, earthshaking turnaround by the United States State Department in support of Israel, what were some of the other reactions to the prospective merger of Hamas and Fatah. Israel, predictably, cancelled any future meetings with the Palestinian Authority and made announcements to the press that should the merging of Hamas in Gaza with the Palestinian Authority and Fatah in Judea and Samaria prove out, then there would be no further negotiations or relations between Israel and the new entity. Somewhat more interesting was the reaction from Islamic Jihad, who pessimistically, though probably realistically if past history provides any valid insights, predicted that the attempt to merge Fatah and Hamas would end in failure. Islamic Jihad reasoned that because Fatah and Hamas made the agreement contingent on accomplishing numerous technical details and gave themselves initially a five week window in which to accomplish these actions, this would provide the two groups sufficient time for one or both to have second thoughts or decide they might stand to lose more powers and position making the deal less appealing and leading to tensions which would result in the deal fracturing and falling through. And lastly, J-Street, the self-professed pro-Israel lobbying group which has been denounced by AIPAC, ZOA, and numerous Ministers from within the Israeli Knesset, came out demanding that the United States government redouble their efforts and force Israel to negotiate with the new entity claiming that since Hamas had support from a sizeable sector of the Palestinian public, then Israel would necessarily need to negotiate with Hamas as there is no other alternative than to engage in more negotiations.

 

I would suspect that before long we will hear J-Street demand that Israel make concessions in order to pacify any rejections Hamas might voice against Israel and continue to make concession after concession, including releasing every Hamas aligned terrorist prisoner, until Hamas agreed to negotiations. Never mind that Hamas has sworn to never negotiate with Israel and sworn to continue with violent Jihad and terrorism until they have completely destroyed Israel and murdered every Jew on planet Earth. Really have my doubts that there are sufficient concessions in the universe to pacify Hamas’s hatreds. This is right in line with other demands made in the Past by J-Street. They have demanded that Israel return the Golan Heights to Syria as a sign of goodwill claiming that if only Israel would show their flexibility and return the occupied Syrian territory, then Syria would make peace and end all hostilities between the two nations. Syria has never made any offer to end their state of war with Israel and have been quite content to live with a semi-official ceasefire. J-Street has apparently missed the small fact that Israel annexed the Golan Heights as there was no possibility of returning them to Syria remembering that life in northern Israel’s Galilee Valley was next to impossible as Syrian snipers would regularly shoot at the farmers and other civilians from their position atop the overlooking Golan Heights positions. The Syrians would also fire an occasional artillery barrage destroying property and endangering lives. Actually, J-Street could not be any more anti-Israel in their positions if they were to be the ones seeking to merge with Hamas instead of Fatah, and they might even have more in common with Hamas ideologically than does Fatah, though that would be an even contest between the two.

 

In many ways a merger reincorporating Hamas into the Palestinian Authority and thereby tinting Fatah and Mahmoud Abbas with the terrorist label through guilt by association actually come to pass, it would have the advantage of labelling Fatah and the Palestinian Authority more honestly recognizing the terrorist heart that existed even without Hamas’s presence. The frightening possibility is that the position being proposed by J-Street could very well come to fruition in the not too distant future after time has weakened the will to call a Palestinian terror organization what it is, a terror organization, will dissipate leading to the State Department to recant and demand Israel begin to make concessions once again in order to convince, read bribe, whomever the Palestinian Authority elects as their new leadership to come to the negotiating table and reinvigorate the otherwise dead peace process farce. We can fully expect that over time there will begin to be calls, and later demands, that Israel reinstate the intentions and processes that were at the heart of the Oslo Accords reestablishing their recognition of the Palestinian Authority as the rightful representation of the Palestinians and as such the government in waiting of the Arab state which should be formed to live next to Israel in “peace and security”.

 

Remember that this will be the new Palestinian Authority which will include Hamas and probably eventually, should the agreement come to fruition, Islamic Jihad and any other terror entity that exists within Gaza, Judea and Samaria. The first sources of this destructive and dangerous idea will probably come from the Arab League followed soon by the United Nations Human Rights Council which will be buttressed by Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon almost immediately. Soon thereafter the European Union will jump on board and there will be the litany of complaints and the parade of endless Palestinian hardships and other miseries all given sympathetic coverage by much of the mainstream world media. Much of this will be timed to reach its zenith soon after a new President of the United States has been inaugurated. Then will come the State Department lobbying and advising the new President of how the time is right and how the President can be the one who can win the trust of the Israelis and bring the two sides together and forge a peace thus winning a place in history as well as securing a Nobel Peace Prize. Heck, they might even try to convince the President that by accomplishing this grand achievement that it will bring an end to all conflicts throughout the entire globe and actually accomplish an unprecedented reality of “peace in our time.” Let us hope that whoever the President is being sold this fetid bag of goods has sufficient grasp of recent history and what the last achievement that was touted as bringing “peace in our time” resulted in producing. Another result like that is the last thing this world needs, especially if we also remember the admonition given by Albert Einstein when queried about the weapons with which World War III would be fought using, where he replied, “I know not with what weapons World War III will be fought, but World War IV will be fought with sticks and stones.”

 

Developing story, more to come tomorrow.

 

Beyond the Cusp

 

Blog at WordPress.com.