A Few Laughs But a Lot of Tears

[[[[[[[[[[[[The following is my rebuttal to Rob Eshman’s attempt at satire, but failed to disclaim that when he published in the Jewish Journal during the week of November 14-20^th. Satire or not, this still validates my argument that we are spending far too much time on this issue at the expense of some very serious, complex problems in our world today. For the text of Eshman's op ed go to http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/it_cant_happen_here_20081111/]]]]]]]]]]]]]]

I always seem to come away from Rob Eshman’s editorials asking more questions than getting answers. I guess I should be thankful that at least he isn’t a teacher in LAUSD. You would think with all the serious problems we have in this world, and moving ever closer to a collapse of Western civilization either through enemies seeking to destroy us or through our own devises financially, or maybe a combination of both, that even the hardest to convince would let the lesser issues go, but it is just not to be.

Somewhere in the world while you are reading these words someone is planning your demise. There is a malevolent entity scheming ,preparing, rubbing its hands together, waiting for the right moment to strike, just when we would be the most off guard.

It is quite possible, that Rob Eshman and his Left wing collaborators have provided that spark to light the fuse. (“It Can’t Happen Here,” November 14-20.) Gay marriage is a small insignificant issue. We are spending an inordinate amount of time discussing it. Gay people have already been given the same rights as heterosexual people through a series of passed laws that define their co habitation with one another, namely civil unions. But, Eshman as inane as it was, used his bully pulpit this week to strike fear into Jews saying that the passage of Prop 8 will bring on an Anti-Semitism never before experienced in our society.

Stratfor reported this week that Mexican drug cartels are now stockpiling large caches of advanced weaponry and they are using them against us. The warning signs are clear. The open southern border policy of the United States continues to deteriorate and now the drug cartels seem to have the intention of taking over that border by force.

Eshman’s convoluted logic draws some warped juxtaposed analogies. I couldn’t help thinking as I struggled to get through this embarrassing attempt at sounding an alarm that he was trying to compare and contrast the Right’s genuine fear that legalized gay marriage will lead to the legalization of currently considered aberrant behaviors, like incest, or NAMBLA. Eshman’s laughable contra-action, a movement in 2012 to make illegal, marriages between Jewish men and Jewish women.

This week Iran said it successfully tested a two-stage solid-fuel missile with a 1200 mile range, fully capable of hitting Tel Aviv. That is bad enough conventionally but how much longer until it can carry a nuclear payload?

Of course, he doesn’t name the source that’s giving this information. I wonder if Eshman or his staff that interviewed this nameless, faceless, unknown threat to the Jews he refers to only as “the organizer”, made a point of telling him that a ballot initiative preventing Jews from marrying other Jews is not necessary because Jews already are marrying outside their faith on their own at alarming numbers.

Israel just spent the week in bloody exchanges with the Gazans over…well… over nothing, probably just hatred of Jews and Israel.

Eshman instead reaches deep into the recesses of Jewish fears that the remnant of anti-Semitic Christian Europe will once again rise up to prevent Jews from practicing their religion by not allowing them to marry each other because “the organizer” believes this violates his rights and forces him to honor the Jewish choice of marrying each other. What?

The real anti-Semitism in this country has already begun its drive to force Rahm Emanuel to step down from his job with the unfortunate comments made by his revisionist father in Israel this passed week. That didn’t take long.

Eshman claims that the Prop 8 support coalition “feels the wind at their backs” and the momentum is building to move on to get the Jews. That is utter nonsense. Yes on Prop 8 people are under attack and are in no position to go on any offensive, whether it’s the Eshman argument in this article or any other. They are too busy hunkering down to protect themselves in the face of the most fascist inspired display of post election disregard for democracy that I ever seen in my lifetime in this country. I expect that kind of thing coming from the West Bank, not from West Hollywood. This is what we really should be fearing, not the passage of prop 8, but the totalitarianism of the elitist minority not to accept the will of the people. Rob Eshman and his allies on the Left should do the right thing and call off those dogs while there is still a chance to do so before somebody gets killed over it.

The election is over. It’s time to return to the business at hand, insuring the ushering in of the smooth transition of power of one administration for another. A foundational underpinning of the democracy we all cherish is where we should be focused at this moment. The next administration is going to have a full plate on January 21^st and we all need to be ready for it. I really hope that Rob Eshman returns to that mindset next week. He can choose any of the topics I mentioned here or go to another one of his choice. There is no shortage of important issues to be dealt with in this dangerously changing world of ours.

The Obama Khalidi Connection

A letter to the editors at Jewish Journal bringing out the shameful omission of Obama's connection with an enemy of the State of Israel.

I was shocked and disturbed that the Khalidi controversy was not covered in the Los Angeles Jewish Journal this passed week. Khalidi, the somewhat infamous but mostly unknown self described enemy of the State of Israel, is a very distinguished and admired professor, first at the University of Chicago and more recently of Colombia University in New York. He has an articulate manner of anti Israel bias that has wooed Jewish intellectuals, professors, and apparently journalists in the English speaking world to his way of seeing things. Could that be what is going on with the Jewish Journal?

Not a mention in this week’s Journal. But, that is not surprising, as the paper that broke the story The L.A. Times, is mum about what else they know about an infamous dinner engagement in 2003 when Obama broke bread with some of the worst terrorist sympathizers this country has to offer. The guest list probably read more like the hounds of Hell rather than a distinguish list of intellectuals, democratic politicians, college professors, and of course our future president. The Times has become part of the story since they will not release a tape of the dinner. Anyone who is familiar with the murderous tendencies of Israel’s enemies can guess what is probably on it. No wonder they will not release it. Can any clear thinking person who understands the simplicity of right and wrong sit while that was going on? One can only wonder how a future president of the United States can sit through so much hate and not walk out. Yet he did. And, he is about to become our commander and chief and the Jewish Journal can say nothing? Both The Times and the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles has enthusiastically endorsed Barack Obama for president.

Since the Journal has more interest in satisfying a political agenda than protecting its own, I have a few more questions. What will this portend for us as a people in an Obama administration? Can we expect Khalidi and others like Farrakhan, Reverend Wright, Bill Ayers, et al., to be invited to state dinners at the White House? Would the Journal be silent about that also? Could we be possibly looking at an end to the “Special” relationship between Israel and the United States begun 50 years ago by John F. Kennedy. Can we expect from the Obama “change” mantra the rape of Israel and its bloody violent death? If that happens in an Obama administration who do we blame? Obama? Khalidi? the Reprublicans?

Now, for the answers. We can blame ourselves because we have seen fit to keep silent from the warning signs. I hate to be so cheesy as to make Holocaust references but the last time we ignored signs like this was during Hitler’s rise to power. As the powerful and influential in the German Jewish community took out full page adds in the papers siding with Hitler’s National Socialism and writing off his threats to do away with Jews by saying “he would never do that, Germany cannot survive without its Jews.” Once again we are going like lambs to the slaughter. Does this silence mean the Journal believes that an Obama administration will live up to its campaign promises concerning Israel even though the writing on the wall is somewhat different. The State of Israel is in danger in an Obama administration. And, the Jewish Journal will not print the information.

I would call this cowardly but somehow that just doesn’t seem right. It is treasonous that a newspaper, with an almost exclusive Jewish readership, would choose to turn its back on a growing threat to Israel. In other words the Journal has now cross the line and no longer considers itself a Jewish community newspaper but a Democratic Party rag. Where is the courage in that?

An Open Letter to Mona Eltahawy

A response to Mona Eltahawy regarding “ Fear of an Obama Planet Grips Some Americans,” From the Jewish Journal, July 16, 2008. For the original Eltahawy article go to http://www.jewishjournal.com/opinion/article/fear_of_an_obama_planet_grips_
some_americans_20080716/

Mona,

Let me qualify myself so you don’t write me off as some online right wing kook. Well, you might but you should know anyway that I, like Obama, and you, have traveled. I have also lived abroad. And, I have family in several countries. I might add, in case you want to use it against me under your breadth also have numerous friends all over the globe. The difference is that I do not share your vision of your so called “Obama world.” Here’s why.

I would strongly disagree with your friend and dinner partner during that mystical night in Mumbai a few weeks ago when he “turned to (you) and proclaimed ‘Americans are inherently stupid.’” For someone whose country was torn apart because Hindu and Muslim could not find common ground to live together, I think he should hold his tongue. As far as Egypt is concern, that is certainly no bastion of freedom and equality either. I’ve been to Cairo, Mona, I’ve seen it with my own eyes. Americans are not perfect but at least we struggle with the questions of modern humanity, and because of that strive to solve some of those perplexing problems that face us as a world community. As far as I can see Egyptians and Indians have done none of that.

It is people like Sanjay and that Sri Lankan woman, who because of her noisy eavesdropping couldn’t help but join in, that creates all the hate in the world. You and your friends Mona, are small minded people who cannot see the bigger picture of all the good that America has done and the sacrifice that Americans have made on your behalf. It appears that you had a real good laugh over the ignorant questions whether Egypt had fresh fruit or Sri Lanka had bread. Mona, while your dad was growing up did he think that the streets of America were lined with gold?

You may be an expert on Arab and Muslim issues but you don’t know Americans very well. Ignorance of one’s people I guess works both ways. Americans who oppose Obama do not fear him because he is black. That is so typical of the bigoted, intolerant narrow thinking that regards us as “stupid.” First, You might just get that “Obama world” you seek, as he has an excellent chance of becoming the next President of the United States. If that happens that means that many of the same people who voted for George Bush in 2004 will have to vote for Obama in order for him to win. How do you explain that? I look forward to you answering that question in November in these pages. Second, the problem that some Americans have with Obama is not because he is black, it’s because of his politics. I know this is something that you and Sanjay might not understand but the vast majority of us do vote for people on that basis, not because of who they are, the color of their skin, the religion they believe in, or where they come from. I will remind you that this is America and are we are a free people. Free to vote for and choose the government we wish. I don’t think that exists in the Egyptian state system, does it?

Instead of asking your high browed, stuck up architect friend about Americans why don’t you ask the Africans whose lives have been saved because of the simple Mosquito net which was set up and mass produced American style, with the direct help of the Bush administration and has saved hundreds of thousands of lives because of its success. Or, why you are at it, ask them about that peanut butter substance, profiled on 60 minutes several times, the most recent a couple of weeks ago, that is literally saving lives of countless children who otherwise would die of malnutrition and starvation. Or, how about the Americans that sacrificed their lives in trying to help the Somalis during the now famous “Black Hawk Down” incident? Have the Indians or Egyptians done anything like that lately?

Americans do a lot of good in the world. They feed the hungry, clothe the naked and medicate the sick. Trillions of hard earned American dollars, the same Americans you think are so “stupid,” go into providing these programs. Americans give and give and give some more. Forget about Egypt and India, have any non white European countries practiced that kind of humanitarian effort lately? The Saudis? The Kuwatis? They certainly have the money, what have they done?

Frankly, I don’t know why the Jewish Journal puts up with your kind of hatred. You don’t have to be a “right winger” to love this country. Especially, for us Jews who after centuries of wandering have finally found a home that treats us as equals. And, without America and the clear righteous thinking of American, white, European descended Christians, it is questionable whether Israel would be celebrating its 60^th birthday this year. Again, these are the same Americans you had such a good time laughing about at your little dinner party in Mumbai. You might just get that “Obama world” that you are not able to vote for. But, remember this, this is not Egypt, a president must answer to his people, and even the radical principles of leftists like Obama will not bring this country down.

Just another Stupid American

Jihad in America

A response to Brad A. Greenberg's article in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles in May of 2007. Greenberg's article can be found at www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=17734

The Pew research center recently published a survey on Muslims in America with some startling results. Some I have spoken with looked at this poll and decided that American Muslims are for the most part well adjusted and committed to the American dream. While the survey indicated this might indeed be the case for many, maybe even a majority, the disturbing fact is that it also showed that along with the positive Muslim contribution to American society comes with it an evil which hides beneath the surface of that community, waiting like a jackal, watching, calculating, looking for just the right moment to strike.

It is paramount that Americans do not ignore the dangers that the survey clearly outlines.

No one really knows how many Muslims live in America. Estimates range from two to eight million. But, the statistics from this poll were all based on that low figure. So for our purposes we will use the low end of the estimate.

26% of American Muslims under the age of thirty think suicide bombing is justified in some situations. Let me re-write that so we can all be clear. One in four American Muslims under the age of thirty think that suicide bombing is OK. If you take the time to do the math 26% roughly works out to a bare minimum of 200,000 individuals in America who would potentially support, advocate and might even carry out suicide attacks inside our own country.

Ahmed Billoo is a twenty two year old American Muslim student, who looks about as normal as any other twenty-two year old American. He grew up in an upper middle class home, is respectful to his parents and plays soccer with his friends on weekends. Just like your kid or mine, right? Wrong. Ahmed Billoo supports Jihadi movements around the world. And, while he stops short of advocating using Jihadi techniques himself, he supports others who use it to obtain their objectives. He says depending on the situation, taking one’s life in the name of Jihad while murdering innocent people at the same time is the ultimate sacrifice for Islam and it is a blessing to take innocent people with you when doing it.

Billoo was the focus of an article in the Los Angeles Jewish Journal in which the author Brad A. Greenberg chose to smooth over Billoo’s unsettling comments. Since Billoo hasn’t actually killed anybody himself that we know of, his comments might be taken with a grain of salt. Nevertheless Billoo’s philosophy is apparently a growing trend among Muslims here in the United States. Greenberg asked Islamic expert Daniel Pipes to explain the phenomenon. "What you have is a low-wage jihad taking place, but people are not paying attention to it. These sentiments are seething, and at any time might erupt." Are we in danger? Dr. Pipes thinks we are.

Billoo, probably sensing the discomfort Americans might have reading his words, softened his position of excusing suicide bombing. "Muslim or not Muslim, we all fear death. Blowing yourself up is not something everyone can do or something that everyone has the courage to do. I'm not saying we should all go around America doing that;” and then qualifies the admission by saying that “Palestine is a different situation.” In other words it’s not Ok to kill Americans, yet, but at this time it is perfectly acceptable to kill Jews. Aside from the fact that killing Jews smacks of twentieth century brutalities we don’t need to go into here, how long I would ask will it be until Billoo’s type will think it is in the American Jihadist’s interest to start murdering Americans on the same scale it now indiscriminately murders men, women and children inside the State of Israel?

I contacted Daniel Pipes and asked him to elaborate on the comments he made in the article as to how the Billoo archetype could happen in a free, affluent America, whether Muslim or not. Pipes did not think that lifestyle had anything to do with the commitment to Jihad which makes it all the more dangerous. “It’s no surprise, given the power of radical Islam and the statistics we have from the UK ; that this rage and bellicosity is unrelated to sociology (poverty, age, etc.).” After all, we now know that the 9-11 killers were not driven through politics but through religion. The obvious conclusion to Dr. Pipes assertions is that Ahmed Billoo, and all like him are exactly the kinds of Muslims we should be taking a hard look at. Why are we not doing that?

Some have argued moral equivalencies while discussing the merits of this poll. Moral equivalency always seems to make an appearance in discussing the rights and wrongs of the Muslim world. We who live under the Christian Judeo concept which has brought democracy and freedom to all who are willing to struggle for it need to send a statement to those who make such equivalencies, that it is not acceptable to plan, target or execute acts of war which deliberately murder innocent women and children. The Achmad Billoo’s of the world need to be condemned, not tolerated.

I shudder at the day when America and the rest of the West rejoices with the Muslim world dancing and throwing candy in the streets at the brutality that has become to be known as Jihad. The beheading of journalists on the Internet, the blood sport of blowing up pizza parlors, indeed the wholesale slaughter of 3000 Americans while innocently sipping their morning Java must never be accepted as "just warfare." Taking a glass-half-full approach to the Pew Research findings dangerously flirts with such notions. This survey is a wakeup call. We must turn this around before it is too late. Not to will be end of history as we know it.

Amy Klein's Passover Message

A rebuttal to an article published around Passover time in the Jewish Journal, April, 2007. For the complete text of Ms. Klein's article "Freeing the Slaves-in Los Angeles" go to:
http://www.jewishjournal.com/articles/item/freeing_the_slaves_in_
los_angeles_20070330/

Her picture shines at the top of the page, unassuming, kind, gentle completely unthreatening. The article begins by explaining the horrible conditions of how this deserving young woman was forced to endure an undeserving living condition when she first came to the United States. She told of the loss of a child back in Mexico because she “didn’t have the money to save her.” She promised herself that would never happen again and that her three surviving children’s lives would be different from now on. With typical unwavering rugged individualism that is so admired in American culture, she came determined to make that change. Unfortunately her plans didn’t work out. She hooked up with some ner-do-well who outfitted her in a sweatshop in some dingy unsafe factory setting in downtown Los Angeles. She was not allowed to go and come as she pleased. She was at the complete mercy of her handler. She earned pennies on the dollar to what others earned doing relatively the same work. A faceless coworker took pity on her and slipped here a phone number one day. This was the beginning of her way out. With the cunning of a natural human soul yearning to be free she eventually convinced her overseer to allow her to go to church. Instead, she went directly to a phone booth and called the still nameless, faceless hero. She was out, and she never looked back!

This is a paraphrased account of Amy Klein’s “Freeing the Slaves-in Los Angeles,” published in the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles in March, 2007. It is during Passover time when Jews remember how it was to live as slaves in Egypt. Ms. Klein’s portrait of modern day slavery was meant to bring the feeling home for Jews remembering the humbleness of their origins. If any one isn’t free, are any of us free? That is pretty heady stuff for Jews to assimilate, especially during Passover time.

The young woman showcased in the article was commended for her determination, strength of character, and the ability to endure against, what was apparently, all odds. Her name was Flor and Ms. Klein labeled this a story of modern slavery. Americans in general are particularly sensitive about slavery in their country since they fought a war over it 150 years ago with ramifications that still reverberate through American life. Flor made it out, but how many remain? That is the question that Ms. Klein wanted to convey to the Jewish community during the Passover holiday.

Those are good questions and they should be looked into but there are so many problems with the tenor and direction of this story I hardly know where to begin with this critique. Let me start by asking some questions. Is this really slavery as we have come to know the word? Flor was not taken from her home forcibly, she came of her own free will. In other places where slavery is a confirmed problem, like the Sudan for example, slavery is a brutal, vicious condition that cannot be denied. Iabolish.org writes that in the Sudan,

--------militiamen destroy villages and take their pay in human booty. Grown men are shot, but women and children are the marauders' most prized reward. Forced labor without pay, severe beatings, acute hunger, forced religious and cultural conversion, rape, and ritual female genital mutilation are grim realities for the tens of thousands of children and young mothers now in bondage.-----------


Yes, Flor was treated unfairly but her experience doesn’t reflect the inhumanity described above. She was forced to work long hours, and I’m sure her treatment was a crime but, again is this slavery? Slaves aren’t generally paid for their work but Ms. Klein indicated Flor received pay, even though she was cheated out of some of that money which only adds to the crime already committed. “Her trafficker wrote up her pay stub for only a few hours' work and made Flor sign it.” Slaves in the Arab world , as they were historically here in the United States and elsewhere, are never paid for their work.

Were any black people interviewed for this story? I think the black community might have a problem calling this “slavery” the same way Jews might have a problem with the ease of how the word “Holocaust” is used in today’s lexicon. “The Israelis are committing a holocaust against our people (The Palestinians).” Yasser Arafat, 2003.

Ms. Klein seems to be selective in her condemnation of the problem. “Traffickers sell slaves to Europe, Israel and, increasingly, to North America.” It is entirely suspect that the Arab world is left out of this equation. I only used the Sudan as an example above, but a relatively easy Internet search will reveal that slavery in the Arab world is wide spread and strong. And it exists in its most barbaric forms. Almost every international human rights group lists slavery in the Arab world as a huge problem. I can’t believe that this was just some editorial oversight. It is noteworthy that only the west is mentioned as a proponent of modern day slavery. We here in the free world allow the worst form of human bondage imaginable. And, that according to Ms. Klein is embodied in Flor’s story. Outrageous!

But, Ms. Klein, in her mind set wanted to draw attention to the problem, but the solutions she gave naively will not solve it. She does not identify the real source. Instead she by passes it and blames the problem on Western values. If we want to eliminate American slavery as exposed by the Flors of the world then we must attack the problem at its source. That is the runaway, chaotic, anarchy that exists on the Southern open border of the United States. There are so many serious cultural and legal issues arising out of our de facto open border policy that Flor’s predicament is only the tip of the iceberg. The increase in crime across the board and our inability to combat it is seriously eroding the quality of life in this country. America, in certain microcosmic areas is beginning to show signs of disintegrating. Southern California is one of those examples that the rest of the country can look to if they want to understand exactly how serious this problem has become. One only has to study the siphoning off of revenue to other social services to take care of people who can’t take care of themselves to understand the desperate situation in education, health care, police and fire, road building and repair. All social, political and economic services are affected by this problem. Illegals coming from south of the border just like Flor cover a large portion of that population.

I wondered, as I was reading, why there was no mention of racism. Surely in an anti Western accusation such as this there has to be room for racism. It just wouldn't be complete without it. Did Ms. Klein forget to include it? I fully expected to see it sometime before I finished the article. And, then I come across this, “Flor's trafficker is a cousin of the mayor of her hometown.” One can only imagine the field day that Ms. Klein would have had if Flor’s trafficker would have been white. It would have increased the length of the piece at least three paragraphs.

Ms. Klein points to several Los Angeles politicians who are working hard to see that Flor and all others like her are to be set free. “On Jan. 11, (Councilman Eric) Garcetti, Councilman Tony Cardenas and LAPD Chief William Bratton gathered with other officials to announce the declaration of National Human Trafficking Awareness Day.” What a pompous gathering that must have been. Those three gentlemen are part of Ms Klein’s America that says we do not need to be concerned about illegal immigration. They support special order no. 40 which forbids police from investigating a criminal’s immigration status. They support legislation which promotes and continues to strengthen an already out of control sanctuary policy for L.A. They refuse to do anything about the problem usually citing it as federal government responsibility. That’s the George Bush government that claims "they only do the jobs that Americans won’t do." I wrote to all three cited in the article asking for clarification and none would respond to my query. I don’t know if they are just plain cowards or they actually share some hidden delight in watching American sovereignty disintegrate with each passing year.

There was more than one crime committed in this story. First, and foremost, the innocent young woman named Flor should have never gone through this kind of treatment. The people involved on both sides of the border should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Second, and maybe the more insidious of the two, is the continuing denial of the political left in this country that refuses to acknowledge where these kinds of problems originate and their hijacking of the political process to keep them hidden.

This article has less to do with slavery than it does an unwilling population to have the courage to stand up and say that is enough. It certainly holds no positive reflection for Jews at Passover. We should not be proud as Klein’s article is meant to make us feel, we should be ashamed that we have allowed this to happen. We should be slightly fearful that it is getting worse, not better. Amy Klein’s article has a maligning seditious ring to it. It confirms a continuing slide into chaos and cultural disorder. Remove the possibility of open southern borders and you will clear up at least 95% of this problem almost immediately.

Ms. Klein could have chosen to write about the real horrors of slavery in the Islamic world, the brutal capture of human beings treated no better than animals, the death and the stench of oppression. That would have been a real Passover message. All would have benefited from such an article. Instead she chose to write something that would satisfy left wing thinking, filled with progressive psychobabble with politically correct distortions and revised truths. Only a few misguided people who have lost their sense of freedom somewhere along the way, can read Ms. Klein's article and shake their heads yes and say to themselves, “now I can have meaning to my Passover Seder.”

Some are Willing…Some are Not

A review of a lecture I attended which was of interest to all Americans. I submitted this as a freelanced piece to the Jewish Journal in February, 2007.

Monday night (Feb 5, 2007) marked the beginning of the sixth annual Public Lecture Series at the Gibson Auditorium in Universal City, Los Angeles, sponsored by the University of Judaism. The theme of the evening was the role of America in the 21st. century as viewed by three of America’s most reliable allies. A panel of past presidents and prime ministers expressed their views for the future with America leading the free world. Ehud Barak of Israel, John Major of England and Jose Maria Aznar of Spain, spoke individually at first and then in a panel discussion conducted by a moderator. .

The emergence of China, the world economy, and the spread of democracy was discussed. But, judging from applauses the most important topics to the audience was how the United States would lead Western Civilization in the War on Terror. Barak and Major were predictable in their assessments of terrorism and its spreading influences like the Islamization of Europe. This is a little disconcerting about Major since he identifies himself as part of the conservative party in England. Barak, since he is Israeli no matter what his political leanings are you wouldn’t think he would be so willing to take such a chance on his own country’s survival by desiring to enter into a peace treaty with people who are sworn to destroy it.

In fairness they both expressed concern about the state of world affairs but held out for a bright future, emphasizing diplomacy and conciliation. Major was insistent that Europe could face a crisis later because of Muslim integration, but for right now” it is ok.” I was beginning to squirm in my seat. This is in light of recent reports that Mohammad is now the number one baby naming choice in Major’s own country. (I wrote this before the exposure that week of a Jidhadi plot to kill a British soldier home on leave from Iraq). The protégé of Maggie Thatcher, the former Prime Minister remarked that when the time became right, European leaders would somehow stop the Islamic "Anschluss." And, assuming they could do that at some point in the future, then what? Could they reverse it? When, I thought, would John Major believe that the Muslim presence in Europe would be at that point when politicians would have to intervene and do something.

Barak kind of echoed for the Middle East what Major saw for the immediate future of Europe. He still believes that peace on some level is possible with Israel’s surrounding neighbors within the near future. He sidestepped the question of grading the Israeli government’s performance in the Lebanon war last summer, refusing to comment on the basis that he was personal friends with Prime Minister Ehud Olmert. I get the impression that Barak is one of many Jews who are perfectly willing, however naively, to hand our enemies the rope so they can hang us with it.

Aznar was different. He remained the one bright light during the evening. He held that the Islamist threat must be confronted now. The fight against terror should never be backed away from. He was very supportive of Israel not only with its struggle against terror but its ability to survive in a climate of so many seeking to destroy it. He was full of sound bites but that's ok I like what he had to say. He said, "If America is the best hope, then Israel is the last hope." He told the Israelis in the audience that they are not the problem, "the problem is elsewhere."
You may remember Aznar. As president of Spain he was one of the more enthusiastic supporters of the Bush coalition in Iraq. He was in office the day of the Madrid bombing that killed 191 people in 2004. Three days later, and some say because of it, he lost reelection to the Socialist Zapatero, who promptly withdrew the Spanish troops from Iraq. An embarrassment to Spain and a huge victory for the terrorists, the Madrid bombings was further proof to the enemy that the West has no will to fight. Aznar stands in the doorway of that notion. He believes that the United States will have to take the lead if Western Civilization has a chance to win the War on Terror.

I felt like I was watching Churchill in 1936 demanding that England and France go in and disarm Hitler’s rearmament. Almost everyone alive during that time whether in government or not, had vivid memories of the World War I catastrophe and wanted to avoid war at all costs. Churchill took a lot of ridicule for this stand. But, as we know from history a few years later he was the sole world leader protecting Western Democracy from a totalitarian abyss. I hope Aznar returns to government in his country. It gives me hope that there are still world leaders that realize what we are up against. I thought the Spanish were cowards after the Madrid bombing controversy. Now I know that is not true. There is at least one man who is not, Jose Maria Aznar certainly has my support.

Two State Solution, Then and Now

Written in rebuttal to Rob Eshman's editorial in the Jewish Journal sometime around the beginning of 2007

Twenty years ago the idea of a two state solution to settle the Middle East conflict was not acceptable even though the extreme political left at the time said that it was. The problem then is more or less the same problem now; the Arabs just don’t want it. At a Peace Now sponsored 1980s rally at Roxbury Park in Los Angeles, three speakers who will be familiar to you for other reasons, Richard Dreyfuss, Betty Friedan, and Yael Dayan argued the merits of creating two states west of the Jordan River. Today some would say that those speakers were correct, even visionary, because that radical proposal of the 1980s is now mainstream thinking. Touché!

Here’s what’s wrong. Opponents back then objected to the two state argument for three main reasons. One, however noble their intentions, Jews calling for a two state solution showed the Jewish community as weak at a time when it should have closed ranks and remained strong. Two, if Israel somehow negotiated the agreement with a dishonest Arafat it would not bring peace. It would only act as a stepping stone to the Palestinians’ ultimate goal, the destruction of Israel. Three, it wasn’t that a two state solution was not a reasonable end to the conflict but, its timing was off. In the event that a negotiated peace could not be achieved as was suspected by Peace Now, their alternative was to just depart from the territories as an Israeli MK told me in a conversation in 1985. A nation that surrenders land taken in a war it did not start, cannot be interpreted in any other way other than complete defeat. Most of world Jewry could not accept such terms for Israel’s future in the 1980s.

The two state solution, then as now only works for Jews. The democratically elected leadership in Palestine, Hamas, are not interested. They insist that in any peace agreement Israel must literally cease to exist. There are several ways to achieve this, through violence and bloodshed, forcing Israel to take in several million Palestinians who claim refugee status, or simply by just negotiating away the first Jewish homeland in two thousand years. It doesn’t really matter to Khalid Mashaal and company how it happens as long as it happens. And, the Palestinians are counting on the Western Left to help make that happen. Just as it forced its self-promoted idea of a premature two state solution in the 1980s, the Arab world along with the Western Left now believe that current Left wing views can once again become Israeli policy someday. The destruction of the Jewish State is on the table and it’s coming unless we do something to stop it.

The modern day equivalent to Richard Dreyfuss’s 80s involvement in a two state solution are left wing Jews like Tony Judt and Tony Kushner. Both men advocate Israel take some of the steps that Hamas insists on in order to create peace. One can only speculate on why they would advocate forcing Israel into life threatening, compromising positions. Judt’s and Kushner’s position today are considered valid and attainable because Richard Dreyfuss’s unpopular speech twenty years ago has now become a fait accompli to the Arab Israeli conflict.

Didn’t I read somewhere that Tony Kushner believes that Israel was a mistake and should never have been created? But, he is a proud Jew and loves Israel. This is who the Left relies on to keep their finger on the pulse of the future. For those of you who don’t know, Tony Kushner was one-half of the writing team of Steven Spielberg’s indictment of Israel’s war on terror, the movie “Munich.”

Admittedly, Judt and Kushner are the lunatic fringe of Left wing politics. But, like Dreyfuss and the others, they are Hollywood types who have a certain amount of influence in these matters. And, like that rally in the park in the 1980s we would be fools to write off Judt and Kushner just because they represent the extreme of Jewish left wing thinking.

The Left regards the pullout from Gaza in 2005 as a great victory because of their advocacy in the 1980s. Before the post Zionist activists pat themselves on the back for taking responsibility for planting the seed of extricating Israel from Gaza, they should ask themselves if they actually think that Israel is better off now since they vacated Gaza. Is there any more peace on that border than there was before they pulled out? Is Israel any safer, more secure? Maybe they should ask the parents of Gilad Shalit that question.

Studying the issue, the accused right seems to be the more visionary of the two philosophies. Most of the world wide Jewish community have perennially argued against the leftwing agenda, labeling it accommodation, conciliation, acquiescence, and surrender by insisting that what would happen in the 1980s was exactly what happened in the middle of the first decade of the 21st. century. In the 80s the opponents argued that the Palestinians would never accept the Jews as an equal peace partner, that withdrawal from a territory either through negotiation or unilaterally, would embolden the enemy and that to practice this agenda could potentially mean the destruction of Israel. Two out of three of those scenarios have definitely proved true. If the rest of us are diligent in opposing the extreme left the third will never come to pass. Still every once in awhile you read an article or hear something on NPR celebrating the disturbing connection between Richard Dreyfuss “courageously” positing a two state solution back in the 80s and that Judt’s and Kushner’s prediction of a smaller more diminutive Israel might be in the offing in the near future.

Calling for dialogue with an entity that has no intention of settling the dispute peacefully can only work against the safety and security of Israel. The answer is usually that the objective is to bypass Hamas and negotiate directly with Fatah. Assuming that America and Israel can pull that off and undermine the elected government in Palestine, what makes anyone think that a second time might prove any different than the disaster at Camp David in the summer of 2000? I’m sure that Shalom Ackshov and other left wing groups in Israel think there is an opportunity to negotiate a real peace with Abbas. But, Fatah contains groups within its ranks who are just as violence orientated against Jews as Hamas. What the Left, Jewish and others need to realize is the sad truth that there are literally very few people in the Palestinian territories who want to end this conflict as much as Israel. In other words there is no one to talk peace with on the other side. There is no one home in the Palestinian peace camp and the lights are off for now.

We all want peace, but peace must be real, not one sided and only used as a jumping off point for the ultimate goal, revenge for 1948 and beyond. I am not Judt or Kushner so I shudder to think that such a scenario can come true. Peace is not possible at this time, that much is clear. What Jews need to do is to come together; hunker down, protect ourselves and expect more war before there will be peace. We must wait for the Palestinians to tire from all this bloodshed and in the meantime take our lumps and build our security. When this phenomenon finally burns out in a hundred years or so, then we might be able to come out into the sunshine and build the kind of two state solution that will work for everyone, not just for Western Civilization’s extreme leftwing or the Arab Muslim world, but for those who love Israel as well.

Why is this so hard?

This is a letter to the editor of the Jewish Journal of Los Angeles where two different editorialists took a position that I had issue with.

It was interesting to read the opinion page this past week (January 19, 2007). Two articles by two regular contributors demonstrate a clarity about Israel, American Jews respect and admire. You would think they would know what the real scoop is, but it isn’t so. Both men, Judea Pearl and Larry Derfner write about Israel and the Palestinian dispute and like many other Jews just refuse to see the writing on the wall. Pearl feebly tries to inch the human race into accepting that Hamas really is capable of more than suicide bombers and Derfner writes that Netanyahu is a racist on the level of the same vile Western thinking as Jean Le Pen or Jorge Haider.

It is clear that both men just cannot see that the peace process, or at least what we use to call the peace process, is a complete and utter failure. Pearl struggles to weigh the possible Palestinian moves that might one day produce peace juxtaposed to the more ominous desires to bring and end to Israel. For example, he convinces himself and hopefully his readers that one of the very few lone voices of reason in the Palestinian realm, Sari Nusseibeh is really a spark to a much wider acceptance of Israeli existence. Nusseibeh, a truly courageous individual, has made few converts over the years and deals with death threats on a fairly consistent basis because of his views. Years of Nusseibeh’s influence has not produced results.

Hamas, with their blood thirsty platform whether they are in power or not, enjoy vast support from the Palestinian people. They have the blessing from the wider Arab world to destroy Israel if they can do it. It’s not peace Hamas is after, it’s murder and mayhem. Why is that so difficult for some to accept?

Netanyahu is not a racist, he is scared like the rest of us who understand that we better stand up to this enemy or it just might defeat us. And, defeat for us means the end of everything. We will not be Europe and Japan rebuilding after the war is over. There will be no Europe or Japan to rebuild. Unlike Derfner and Pearl, Netanyahu understands that if you want to climb into bed with a scorpion, expect to be dead by morning.

That Netanahu’s sound bited statement of his polices as finance minister produced a lowering of the Arab birth rate sent Derfner into unfair assumptions about Netanyahu’s intentions. To show how racist the comment was, Derfner asks the question what would Jewish reaction be if the policy in some other country were to clandestinely lower the birthrate of Jews? Are Jews part of an unrelenting effort to destroy the other countries they live in, in America, Canada or England? The question has no merit.

What Derfner defines as racism Netanyahu regards as necessary for Israel’s survival. He insists this war is far from over. Because he says the things we don’t want to hear, but deep down we know to be true he is condemned. He’s not a racist, he’s a survivalist. Israel lives in the thick of the growing Jihad menace and will need to defend itself in the coming months and years like it has never done before. David Ben Gurion, Israel’s first prime minister, presided over the most dangerous time in Israeli history, the first ten days of the state’s existence in 1948. He would roll over in his grave if he knew what kind of peril Israel faces in the near future. Its time we as Jews realize our responsibility. We must face this evil down as a community and stand as one because not to is to face the unthinkable.

I wish that both Pearl and Derfner were correct in their assessments. I wish I could have read those articles and thought to myself there is always a chance for peace. We just need to push forward and although it will take a long time it can and will happen. I wish the Palestinian people were more like our people in that they would be willing to forget old hatreds for the good of our children. I wish there were two states west of the Jordan River living side by side in peace. I wish all that were possible. But, you can’t deal with “wishes” in the Middle East, you must deal with realities. And, the realities are clear. After almost fifty-nine years the Jews are no closer to a settlement with the surrounding Arab population than they were when Israel became a state.

If responsible voices in the community like Pearl and Derfner continue with this pipe dream, that the Arabs will someday accept their Jewish cousins, and continue to condemn those who are ready to defend Jewish life as we know it as racists, Israel and its people (and that means all of us, because after Israel, European and American Jews will be next) will return to the old ways of begging the gentile for protection, and walking like sheep in a world that “tolerates its Jews.” That is of course, if there are any Jews left to tolerate.