Showing posts with label Caroline Glick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Caroline Glick. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

Category Error: Attacking Norway for Pearl Harbor


Bahukutumbi Raman, in a recent dispatch labeled “PAK ARMY & ISI: DANGEROUS MIX OF HUMILIATION & DESPERATION”, warns that Pakistan may be planning to redeem itself by orchestrating a successful strike against India, especially in the contentious Kashmir region.

No doubt, Pakistan’s citizens are seriously concerned about the ability of their government and armed forces to protect them. No doubt there has been talk on the streets of intelligence failure at best or illicit collusion with the Americans at worst.

Yet, all this follows a familiar pattern. Most military incursions into sovereign territory for any reason are done in stealth. The inevitable questions and accusations follow. Did Roosevelt know about Pearl Harbor in advance? Did Bush know about 9/11? And in her column in yesterday’s Jerusalem Post, Caroline Glick accuses Ehud Barak, Israel’s Defense Minister of failing to anticipate trouble along the country’s Syrian border on Nakba Day.

The truth is, no government can promise ironclad security to its citizens. A successful strategy, however, must involve the threat of consequences for anyone intending such a move. If Pakistan were to attack India in the wake of its so-called ‘humiliation’, such redemption would be short lived. For one thing, India had nothing to do with the bin Laden raid.

President Bush underwent a hell of tortures for his decision to attack Iraq in the wake of 9/11. His opponents constantly labeled it as “the wrong war”. In the end, rightly or wrongly, it proved to be his undoing.

My own sense of Pakistan’s leadership is that it is too mature to attack India as a direct consequence of the U.S. bin Laden raid. It has far better options: Turning its focus away from Washington to cooperating more with China is one. If India is attacked, it will not be because of anything that happened in Abbottabad.

I wish I had a similar degree of confidence in America’s foreign policy.

Sunday, May 1, 2011

View from Israel: Netanyahu's Time to Choose

by Caroline Glick

Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu’s response to the Fatah-led Palestinian Authority’s peace deal with Hamas would be funny if it weren’t tragic. Immediately after the news broke of the deal Netanyahu announced, “The PA must choose either peace with Israel or peace with Hamas. There is no possibility for peace with both.”

Netanyahu’s statement is funny because it is completely absurd. The PA has chosen.

The PA made the choice in 2000 when it rejected Israel’s offer of peace and Palestinian statehood and joined forces with Hamas to wage a terror war against Israel.

The PA made the choice in 2005 again when it responded to Israel’s unilateral withdrawal from Gaza with a tenfold increase in the number of rockets and missiles it fired on Israeli civilian targets in the Negev.

The Palestinians made the choice in 2006, when they elected Hamas to rule over them.

They made the choice in March 2007 when Fatah and Hamas signed their first unity deal.

The PA made the choice in 2008 when Abbas rejected then-prime minister Ehud Olmert’s offer of statehood and peace.

The PA made the choice in 2010 when it refused to reinstate peace negotiations with Netanyahu; began peace negotiations with Hamas; and escalated its plan to establish an independent state without peace with Israel.

Now the PA has again made the choice by signing the newest peace deal with Hamas.

IN A real sense, Netanyahu’s call for the PA to choose is the political equivalent of a man telling his wife she must choose between him and her lover, after she has left home, shacked up and had five children with her new man.

It is a pathetic joke.

But worse than a pathetic joke, it is a national tragedy. It is a tragedy that after more than a decade of the PA choosing war with Israel and peace with Hamas, Israel’s leaders are still incapable of accepting reality and walking away. It is a tragedy that Israel’s leaders cannot find the courage to say the joke of the peace process is really a deadly serious war process whose end is Israel’s destruction, and that Israel is done with playing along.

There are many reasons that Netanyahu is incapable of stating the truth and ending the 18- year policy nightmare in which Israel is an active partner in its own demise. One of the main reasons is that like his predecessors, Netanyahu has come to believe the myth that Israel’s international standing is totally dependent on its being perceived as trying to make peace with the Palestinians.

According to this myth – which has been the central pillar of Israel’s foreign policy and domestic politics since Yitzhak Rabin first accepted the PLO as a legitimate actor in 1993 – it doesn’t matter how obvious it is that the Palestinians are uninterested in peaceful coexistence with Israel.

It doesn’t matter how openly they wage their war to destroy Israel. Irrespective of the nakedness of Palestinian bad faith, seven successive governments have adopted the view that the only thing that stands between Israel and international pariah status is its leaders’ ability to persuade the so-called international community that Israel is serious about appeasing the Palestinians.

For the past several months, this profoundly neurotic perception of Israel’s options has fed our leaders’ hysterical response to the Palestinians’ plan to unilaterally declare independence.

The Palestinian plan itself discredits the idea that they are interested in anything other than destroying Israel. The plan is to get the UN to recognize a Palestinian state in Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza outside the framework of a peace treaty with Israel. The PA will first attempt to get the Security Council to endorse an independent “Palestine.” If the Obama administration vetoes the move, then the PA will ask the General Assembly to take action. Given the makeup of the General Assembly, it is all but certain that the Palestinians will get their resolution.

THE QUESTION is, does this matter? Everyone from Defense Minister Ehud Barak to hard-left, post-Zionist retreads like Shulamit Aloni and Avrum Burg says it does. They tell us that if this passes, Israel will face international opprobrium if its citizens or military personnel so much as breathe in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem without Palestinian permission.

These prophets of doom warn that Israel has but one hope for saving itself from diplomatic death: Netanyahu must stand before the world and pledge to give Israel’s heartland and capital to the Palestinians.

And according to helpful Obama administration officials, everything revolves around Netanyahu’s ability to convince the EU-3 – British Prime Minister David Cameron, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel – that he is serious about appeasing the Palestinians. If he doesn’t offer up Israel’s crown jewels in his speech before the US Congress next month, administration officials warn that the EU powers will go with the Palestinians.

And if they go with the Palestinians, well, things could get ugly for Israel.

Happily, these warnings are completely ridiculous. UN General Assembly resolutions have no legal weight. Even if every General Assembly member except Israel votes in favor of a resolution recognizing “Palestine,” all the Palestinians will have achieved is another non-binding resolution, with no force of law, asserting the same thing that thousands of UN resolutions already assert. Namely, it will claim falsely that Jerusalem, Judea, Samaria and Gaza are Palestinian territory to which Israel has no right. Israel will be free to ignore this resolution, just as it has been free to ignore its predecessors.

The threat of international isolation is also wildly exaggerated. Today, Israel is more diplomatically isolated than it has been at any time in its 63-year history. With the Obama administration treating the construction of homes for Jews in Jerusalem as a greater affront to the cause of world peace than the wholesale massacre of hundreds of Iranian and Syrian protesters by regime goons, Israel has never faced a more hostile international climate. And yet, despite its frosty reception from the White House to Whitehall, life in Israel has never been better.

According to the latest data released by the Central Bureau of Statistics, Israel’s economy grew 7.8 percent in the last quarter of 2010.

International trade is rising steeply. In the first quarter of 2011, exports rose 27.3%. They grew 19.9% in the final quarter of last year. Imports rose 34.7% between January and March, and 38.9% in the last quarter of 2010.

The Israel-bashing EU remains Israel’s largest trading partner. And even as Turkey embraced Hamas and Iran as allies, its trade with Israel reached an all time high last year.

These trade data expose a truth that the doom and gloomers are unwilling to notice: For the vast majority of Israelis the threat of international isolation is empty.

The same people telling us to commit suicide now lest we face the firing squad in September would also have us believe that the boycott, divestment and sanctions movement is the single greatest threat to the economy. But that lie was put paid this month with the demise of the Australian town of Marrickville’s BDS-inspired boycott.

Last December, the anti-Israel coalition running the town council voted to institute a trade, sports and academic boycott against Israel. Two weeks ago the council was forced to cancel its decision after it learned that it would cost $3.4 million to institute it. Cheaper Israeli products and services would have to be replaced with more expensive non-Israeli ones.

Both Israel’s booming foreign trade and the swift demise of the Marrickville boycott movement demonstrate that the specter of international isolation in the event that Israel extricates itself from the Palestinian peace process charade is nothing more than a bluff. The notion that Israel will be worse off it Netanyahu admits that Abbas has again chosen war against the Jews over peace with us has no credibility.

SO WHAT is preventing Netanyahu and his colleagues in the government from acknowledging this happy truth? Two factors are at play here. The first is our inability to understand power politics. Our leaders believe that the likes of Sarkozy, Cameron and Merkel are serious when they tell us that Israel needs to prove it is serious about peace in order to enable them to vote against a Palestinian statehood resolution at the UN. But they are not serious. Nothing that Israel does will have any impact on their votes.

When the Europeans forge their policies towards Israel they are moved by one thing only: the US.

Since 1967, the Europeans have consistently been more pro-Palestinian than the US. Now, with the Obama administration demonstrating unprecedented hostility towards Israel, there is no way that the Europeans will suddenly shift to Israel’s side. So when European leaders tell Israelis that we need to convince them we are serious about peace, they aren’t being serious. They are looking for an excuse to be even more hostile. If Israel offers the store to Abbas, then the likes of Cameron, Merkel and Sarkozy will not only recognize “Palestine” at the UN, (because after all, they cannot be expected to be more pro-Israel than the Israeli government that just surrendered), they will recognize Hamas. Because that’s the next step.

It would seem that Israel’s leaders should have gotten wise to this game years ago. And the fact that they haven’t can be blamed on the second factor keeping their sanity in check: the Israeli Left. The only group of Israelis directly impacted by the BDS movement is the Israeli Left. Its members – from university lecturers to anti-Zionist has-been politicians, artists, actors and hack writers – are the only members of Israeli society who have a personal stake in a decision by their leftist counterparts in the US or Europe or Australia or any other pretty vacation/sabbatical spots to boycott Israelis.

And because the movement threatens them, they have taken it upon themselves to scare the rest of us into taking this ridiculous charade seriously. So it was that last week a group of washed-up radicals gathered in Tel Aviv outside the hall where David Ben-Gurion proclaimed Israeli independence, and declared the independence of “Palestine.” They knew their followers in the media would make a big deal of their agitprop and use it as another means of demoralizing the public into believing we can do nothing but embrace our enemies’ cause against our country.

The time has come for the vast majority of Israelis who aren’t interested in the Nobel Prize for Literature or a sabbatical at Berkeley or the University of Trondheim to call a spade a spade. The BDS haters have no leverage. A degree from Bar-Ilan is more valuable than a degree from Oxford. And no matter how much these people hate Israel, they will continue to buy our technologies and contract our researchers, because Cambridge is no longer capable of producing the same quality of scholarship as the Technion.

And it is well past time for our leaders to stop playing this fool’s game. We don’t need anyone’s favors. Abbas has made his choice.

Now it is time for Netanyahu to choose.

caroline@carolineglick.com

Friday, April 15, 2011

Chucks

We basically see what we want to see. In the process we miss what is actually there. In 2008, we pinned our hopes and dreams on Barack Hussein Obama. It soon became apparent that we had grossly miscalculated.

In her column, entitled, “Turkey’s Cautionary Tale”, in today’s Jerusalem Post, Caroline Glick cites Turkey as just one example of ’Dreamland’ having been hyped by the western media as the modern face of Islam and portrayed as an example of an Islamic country that the West can actually work with. Not so fast. Glick skillfully ticks off the steps that Turkey has taken since Erdogan’s election in 2002 that puts the lie to any idea of Islamic rapprochement with the West that the western media incessantly claims. I urge you to read it.

Similarly, we’ve been steadily backsliding into the ‘Dreamland’ fantasy of ‘global warming‘, even after the whole thing has been exposed as a hoax.

We continually hear that our economy is improving. But is it? Is this even within the realm of possibility given our present leadership?

Which brings me to Trump. The Left has launched an all-out assault against Trump. This is because it fears him. Again today, on Glenn Beck’s program, Beck’s sidekicks were hammering him, replaying old sound bites in which Trump bashes Bush. Let me remind you, in those days everybody was bashing Bush. In fact, it became our national pastime (sans hot dogs and beer). You could instantly advance to your 15 minute celebrity status by bashing Bush. That’s how we got Obama.

Obama now pretends that all the criticism he’s receiving is just a part pf presidential scenery. Not so. Bush bashing was fun. Now things have turned serious and most of us have sobered up.

In those days, Trump did not speak as a politician. He spoke as himself in the current vernacular. Now he speaks as one of us, alarmed by what has happened. Sure, he knows Schumer and all the rest. He sat at their tables, and they at his. They did not speak politics per se; they spoke deals.

As I’ve said before, Trump seems a patriot; he does not seem ideological. He appears to love America. He understands what has gone wrong. He is confident inside his own skin. He feels he can make a difference.

There are those who say he would split the Republican party and hand a win to Obama. It may well happen that way. But then again it may not. Look at it as a ’hail Mary pass’ by our side; one last chance for us to throw chucks under the runaway chuck wagon. If the wrong Republican is elected, we lose anyway.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Wednesday, March 16, 2011

'Three Jewish Children' by Caroline Glick


I would urge you all to read Caroline Glick's column in today’s Jerusalem Post entitled, "Our World: Three Jewish Children". As a reading of this column were not horrific enough, I suggest a little exercise: Substitute the word "America", "Republicans", "conservatives", or "tea parties" every time you see the word "Jews" and you'll have a fair indication of what's happening in our own country today.

We are not yet at the point where hatred has been stoked up to combustible levels; we still harbor hope that our political process can contain outright violence. But realize we find ourselves only a few steps away from the abyss in which all niceties fall apart. I would argue that if John McCain were president, we would already have crossed that threshold; that the election of Barack Hussein Obama merely gave us some time to reconsider and turn away from a path that was mapped out under Bush.

Our World: Three Jewish Children

By CAROLINE B. GLICK
03/14/2011 22:41

Ruth Fogel was in the bathroom when the Palestinian terrorists pounced on her husband Udi and their three-month-old daughter Hadas, slitting their throats as they lay in bed on Friday night in their home in Itamar.

The terrorists stabbed Ruth to death as she came out of the bathroom. With both parents and the newborn dead, they moved on to the other children, going into a bedroom where Ruth and Udi’s sons Yoav (11) and Elad (four) were sleeping. They stabbed them through their hearts and slit their throats.


The murderers apparently missed another bedroom where the Fogels’ other sons, eight-year-old Ro’i and two-year-old Yishai were asleep because they left them alive. The boys were found by their big sister, 12-year-old Tamar, when she returned home from a friend’s house two hours after her family was massacred.

Tamar found Yishai standing over his parents’ bodies screaming for them to wake up.

In his eulogy at the family’s funeral on Sunday, former chief rabbi Yisrael Meir Lau told Tamar that her job from now on is to be her surviving brothers’ mommy.

In a rare move, the Prime Minister’s Office released photos of the Fogel family’s blood-drenched corpses.

They are shown as they were found by security forces.

There was Hadas, dead on her parents’ bed, next to her dead father Udi.

There was Elad, lying on a small throw rug wearing socks. His little hands were clenched into fists. What was a four-year-old to do against two grown men with knives? He clenched his fists. So did his big brother.

Maybe the Prime Minister’s Office thought the pictures would shock the world. Maybe Binyamin Netanyahu thought the massacre of three little children would move someone to rethink their hatred of Israel.

That was the theme of his address to the nation Saturday night.

Netanyahu directed most of his words to the hostile world. He spoke to the leaders who rush to condemn Israel at the UN Security Council every time we assert our right to this land by permitting Jews to build homes. He demanded that they condemn the murder of Jewish children with the same enthusiasm and speed.

He shouldn’t have bothered.

The government released the photos on Saturday night. Within hours, the social activism website My Israel posted a short video of the photographs on YouTube along with the names and ages of the victims.

Within two hours YouTube removed the video.

What was Netanyahu thinking? Didn’t he get the memo that photos of murdered Jewish children are unacceptable? If they’re published, someone might start thinking about the nature of Palestinian society.

Someone might consider the fact that in the Palestinian Authority, anti-Jewish propaganda is so ubiquitous and so murderous that killing the Fogel babies was an act of heroism. The baby killers knew that by murdering Udi, Ruth, Hadas, Yoav and Elad they would enter the pantheon of Palestinian heroes. They can expect to have a sports stadium or school in Ramallah or Hebron built for them by the Palestinian Authority and underwritten by American or European taxpayers.

And indeed, the murder of the Fogel children and their parents was greeted with jubilation in Gaza.

Carnivals were held in the streets as Hamas members handed out sweets.

Obviously YouTube managers are not interested in being held responsible for someone noticing that genocidal Jew hatred defines Palestinian society – and the Arab world as a whole. But they really have no reason to be concerned. Even if they had allowed the video to be posted for more than an hour, it wouldn’t have made a difference.

The enlightened peoples of Europe, and growing numbers of Americans, have no interest in hearing or seeing anything that depicts Jews as good people, or even just as regular people. It is not that the cultured, intellectual A-listers in Europe and America share the Palestinians’ genocidal hatred of the Jewish people.

The powerful newspaper editors, television commentators, playwrights, fashion designers, filmmakers and professors don’t spend time thinking about how to prepare the next slaughter. They don’t teach their children from the time they are Hadas and Elad Fogel’s ages that they should strive to become mass murderers. They would never dream of doing these things. They know there is a division of labor in contemporary anti-Semitism.

The job of the intellectual luminaries in Western high society today is to hate Jews the old-fashioned way, the way their greatgrandparents hated Jews back in the days of the early 20th century before that villain Adolf Hitler gave Jewhating a bad name.

Much has been made of the confluence of anti-Semitic bile pouring out of the chattering classes. From Mel Gibson to Julian Assange to Charlie Sheen to John Galliano, it seems like a day doesn’t go by without some new celebrity exposing himself as a Jew hater.

It isn’t that the beautiful people and their followers suddenly decided that Jews are not their cup of tea (or rail of cocaine). It’s just that we have reached the point where people no longer feel embarrassed to parade negative feelings towards Jews.

A DECADE ago, the revelation that French ambassador to Britain Daniel Bernard referred to Israel as “that shi**y little country,” was shocking. Now it is standard fare. Everyone who is anyone will compare Israel to Nazi Germany without even realizing this is nothing but Holocaust denial.

The post-Holocaust dam reining in anti-Semitism burst in 2002. As Jewish children and parents like the Fogels were being murdered in their beds, on the streets, in discotheques, cafés and supermarkets throughout Israel, fashionable anti-Semites rejoiced at the opportunity to hate Jews in public again.

The collective Jew, Israel was accused of everything from genocide to infanticide to just plain nastiness.

Israel’s leaders were caricatured as Fagin, Shylock, Pontius Pilate and Hitler on the front pages of newspapers throughout Europe. IDF soldiers were portrayed as Nazis, and Israeli families were dehumanized.

No longer civilians with an inherent right to live, in universities throughout the US and Europe, Israeli innocents were castigated as “extremist-Zionists” or “settlers” who basically deserved to be killed.

Professors whose “academic” achievements involved publishing sanitized postmodern versions of anti-Jewish Palestinian propaganda were granted tenure and rewarded with lucrative book contracts.

Today, when properly modulated, Jew hatred is a career maker. Take playwright Caryl Churchill’s 1,300- word anti-Semitic monologue Seven Jewish Children.

The script accuses the entire population of Israel of mass murders which were never committed.

For her efforts, Churchill became an international celebrity. The Royal Court Theater produced her anti- Jewish agitprop. The Guardian featured it on its home page. When Jewish groups demanded that The Guardian remove the blood libel from its website, the paper refused. Instead, it left the anti-Semitic propaganda on its homepage, but in a gesture of openmindedness, hosted a debate about whether or not Seven Jewish Children is anti-Semitic.

From London, Seven Jewish Children went on tour in Europe and the US. In a bid to show how tolerant of dissent they are, Jewish communities in America hosted showings of the play, which portrays Jewish parents as monsters who train their children to become mass murderers.

Seven Jewish Children’s success was repeated by the Turkish anti-Semitic action film Valley of the Wolves- Palestine, which premiered on January 28 – International Holocaust Memorial Day. The hero of that film is a Turkish James Bond character who comes to Israel to avenge his brothers, who were killed by IDF forces on the Turkish-Hamas terror ship Mavi Marmara last May.

No doubt owing to the success of Seven Jewish Children and Valley of the Wolves-Palestine and other such initiatives, anti-Semitic art and entertainment is a growth sector in Europe.

Last month Britain struck again. Channel 4 produced a new piece of anti-Semitic bile – a four-part prime-time miniseries called The Promise. It presents itself as an historical drama about Israel and the Palestinians, but its relationship with actual history begins and ends with the wardrobes. In what has become the meme of all European and international left-liberal salons, the only good Jews in the mini-series are the ones who died in the Holocaust. From the show’s perspective, every Jew who took up arms to liberate Israel from the British and defend it from the Arabs is a Nazi.

WHAT ALL this shows is that Netanyahu was wasting his time calling on world leaders to condemn the murder of the Fogel family. What does a condemnation mean? France and Britain condemned the massacre, along with the US. Does that exculpate the French and British for their embrace of anti-Semitism? Does it make them friends of the Jewish state? And say a British playwright sees the YouTubecensored photographs. No self-respecting British playwright will write a play called Three Jewish Children telling the story of how Palestinian parents do in fact teach their children to become mass murderers of Jews. And if a playwright were to write such a play, The Royal Court Theater wouldn’t produce it. The Guardian wouldn’t post it on its website. Liberal Jewish community centers in America wouldn’t show it, nor would university student organizations in Europe or America.

No, if someone wanted to use the photographs of Yoav’s and Elad’s mangled corpses and clenched fists as inspiration to write a play or feature film about the fact that the Palestinians have no national identity outside their quest to annihilate the Jewish state, he would find no mass market.

The headlines describing the attack make all this clear.

From the BBC to CNN the Fogels were not described as Israelis. They were a “settler family.” Their murderers were “alleged terrorists.”

As far as the opinion makers of Europe and much of America are concerned, the Yoavs and Hadases and Elads of Israel have no right to live if they live in “a settlement.”

So too, they believe that Palestinians have a right to murder Israelis who serve in the IDF and who believe that Jews should be able to live freely wherever we want because this land belongs to us.

Until these genteel Jew haters learn to think otherwise, Israel should neither seek nor care if they condemn this or any other act of Palestinian genocide. We shouldn’t care about them at all.

caroline@carolineglick.com

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Cucible


If any should doubt that we are deeply entrenched in a clash of cultures - a war, if you wish - I direct you to Caroline Glick’s opinion piece entitled “The West’s proxy war against the Jews” in yesterday’s Jerusalem Post. She lays it out clearly as few can and have. The crucible, in her view, is Israel. That is to say, the fate of Israel is the metric that will define the ultimate winner of the struggle.

To live side by side in relative peace (like sticks of furniture in an otherwise empty room) with the current Islamic/communist coalition assault now in full swing is out of the question. It is now fully in attack mode. One of its goals is to push Israel into the sea. (Envision anything I might mean by that.) It’ll mark the defeat of the West. The victorious coalition will at first gather ‘round to congratulate themselves; then, they will begin fighting each other, for they are only united on one issue: their hatred of Israel and western capitalism.

Whereas America will remain relatively unscathed by the fall of Jerusalem into Arab hands, Europe will likely not be so lucky. To be sure, America will have its own problems. For one thing, it will be difficult to convince the entire country to salute the red flag. This will have to play out over time.

In today’s WSJ, Mark Helprin tells of America’s retreat from the high seas in an article entitled “The Decline of U.S. Naval Power” We see it ourselves in the continuing saga of pirates successfully negotiating ransoms and killing civilians. It seems incredible that we cannot do much about it. Similarly, as pertains to Libya (or any other trouble spot on the globe), our hands appear to be tied by outside interests and internal concerns (and distractions).

The media has been gearing up to tell us just how bad Kaddafi is (and has been). This is the likely view of the Obama administration as well. It makes me suspicious, however. It’s been a long time since either the media or the government has told us the truth about anything. It may simply reflect Obama’s calculation as to what he believes Kaddafi’s staying power to be, and this administration’s scrambling to get out in front of the curve for once (of course hindered somewhat by - as JB points out - Tripoli’s long and well-established connections to radical elements in Chicago (Farrakhan).

Realistically, you’ve got to go all the way back to 1988 when Pan Am flight 103 crashed at Lockerbie following an in-flight explosion, killing all on board and scattering wreckage all over the area to pin anything of substance on Kaddafi. Since then, I’ve been under the impression that Kaddafi has undergone semi-successful rehabilitation and earned his way back into the fold of the human community. In light of what else is going on in the world today, the springing of bombing suspect Abdelbaset al-Megrahi from a Scottish hospital/jail seems more of a prank, designed to redden the faces of the pompous, than a full-blown crime against humanity.

There is no doubt in my mind that the relatively recent upheavals we are witnessing in the Middle East and elsewhere is due to America’s deliberate distancing itself from its traditional international obligations. This has, at the very least, left a vacuum for sinister forces to exploit. The end result continues to be the chaos of birth. We definitely appear to be on the cusp of some momentous change. This (chaos) is only the first step. What will eventually emerge is anybody’s guess.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Tuesday, February 1, 2011

We Are Building a Religion





As we go back and forth and speculate about what might yet happen (in Egypt), we should go straight to the horse’s mouth. Let’s ask our president directly what it is that he wants to happen. And while we’re at it, let’s ask him straight out what he has in mind for the U.S. Let’s ask him to explain why he is doing what, and what he is hoping to accomplish by doing so. And let’s pretend to believe what he says.

By the way, there’s a great opinion column in the WSJ this morning (Feb. 1) by Bret Stephens entitled “Being Mubarak”. It takes an interesting slant, speculating that the old fox (Mubarak) may yet have some tricks up his sleeve.

It is what it is (and has been for some 30 odd years). There was a reason for why we supported Egypt and, I might add, Israel. With the election of Obama, those reasons have eroded. We turn our backs to both - and things happen. Read Caroline Glick’s column in the JPOST today. What we (in the West) define as ‘success’ is not defined as ‘success’ among Islamists (or communists). Our metrics are not valid there. Any attempt at such comparison may be regarded as ‘category error‘.

What if the revolution succeeds? What if the dominos fall, one by one; and an Islamic Caliphate emerges - one that is hostile to the West? And there is a genocide? Would it end with the destruction of Israel? Maybe so. Or would it gather steam and push into Europe? By the way, would Europe be capable of defending itself?

What if it were found that the American president actively participated in engineering the revolution in the Middle East by withdrawing key supports; manipulating food prices world-wide; deliberately crashing economies by way of monetary policy; supporting radical elements in the name of ‘social justice’? Would we be spared the indignity of shariah? Would he? Not likely. Traitors are universally despised, even under the minimal discipline of chaos.

The twelfth imam is likely to credit his own and pay scant attention to the welfare of foreign accomplices.

In any case, it’ll be the Atlantic that will shield us from the worst of it. Having allowed ourselves to come to this point, however, will haunt us into eternity. We will spend the rest of our lives apologizing, wearing sack cloth, wailing, and tearing our hair. No more arrogance; no more illusions of ‘American exceptionalism‘. We’ll have to rebuild slowly and painfully; our civilization will re-emerge, (this time) stripped of excess and bravado. We’ll have to harden ourselves to the hurled scorn of the betrayed, and forever suffer the weight of insurmountable guilt.

Only the Germans currently have a sense of it. They have been blessed with every attribute that would facilitate achieving unparalleled success; but, at the same time, they know they have forever forfeited their chance at enduring greatness.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Saturday, January 22, 2011

Let's See How It Plays


Olbermann gone, but not forgotten. Perhaps it all boils down to ratings after all. Olbermann has always been near the bottom of the heap. He has talent, no doubt. His talent was overshadowed by his bias. Once bias has been freely and audaciously exhibited, there is no longer any need to watch. Everyone already knew what was coming.

Olbermann is much too smart to let this happen. I suspect he was encouraged all the way. He knew that his ratings suffered. (They all know.) In fact, he had much larger audiences than what was obvious when his clips were played on much more successful shows. These made him out to be a clown and he readily obliged. Why?

I suspect it’s some version of the ‘fairness doctrine’ again: Olbermann on the Left; Beck on the right. “We’ll get rid of Olbermann, if you get rid of Beck. In fact, let’s get rid of the whole bunch of them: We’ll get rid of MSNBC; you’ll get rid of FOX. Let’s start with Beck and Olbermann and see how it plays.”
-------------------------------------------------------------

"Despite the fact that Democrat policies are hugely unpopular, two factors have enabled the party to continue to present itself as mainstream.

“The first factor has been the media. As has been their practice forever, it seems; the media have helped Democrats by demonizing the Republicans and rightist politicians. Working hand in glove with leftist politicians, the media have implemented the politics of personal destruction against right-wing leaders. By demonizing the likes of Bush, Cheney, Palin, Limbaugh et al, they have rendered the social cost of supporting Republicans and the Right too high for many Americans to bear.

“At the same time, the media have colluded with the Left to present leftist leaders as earthy, heroic, sophisticated and responsible statesmen. By keeping the content of their policies firmly out of the discussion and framing the debate instead around personal attacks and symbols, the media have successfully kept conservative leaders on the defensive and shielded leftist politicians from substantive attacks on their radical policies.“

The preceding has been taken from Caroline Glick’s latest article in the Jerusalem Post. It is not about America. It is about Israel. I’ve taken the liberty of changing a few words.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/

Friday, December 10, 2010

Transfer of Dominance


Like everything else, our administration’s announced suspension of its now obvious policy of forcing Israel into an ever-shrinking box can be seen in one of two ways. Supporters of Israel (and Israel itself) will say that Obama has learned his lesson and realized that the Palestinian side of the conflict has never had it as its goal to make peace, and has no intention of doing so no matter how many concessions Israel might make. The denouncers of Israel (and America) will claim that they have succeeded in forcing Obama out of the game.

Both positions contain an element of truth. The real question that needs be asked is: Why has Obama in effect given up, taken his toys and gone home? And why now?

Wikileaks may have played a part. Revelations so far have pretty much left Israel smelling like a rose. It could just be that our president has seen the writing on the wall. He could be thinking that something is about to happen over there and he wants to make sure he’s as far away from it as possible when it blows. In other words, he’s ducking.

There’s always the possibility of war, of course. Yet, short of outright hostilities, diplomatic efforts - now underway - involving nations beyond White House influence could also unmask Obama’s shameless dereliction of responsibility (and climb-down) with regard to one of America’s heretofore closest allies in the Middle East.

The UN is said to introduce a resolution which will unilaterally declare Palestine a state. It is likely to be overwhelmingly supported by its member nations. The American media will paint this development as a total surprise. The U.S. will abstain from voting, breaking with its previous policy. Instead, China will veto, and the transfer of global dominance will be complete.

Whatever happens will happen. Obama has decided he’ll have no part in it. His lack of leadership will once again be exposed, providing fresh impetus for unaligned nations to rally around a winner.

For further reading, google Caroline Glick’s latest assessment of the situation in today’s Jerusalem Post, particularly as it‘s being played out within our own hemisphere.

http://pkoelliker.blogspot.com/