Doc's Talk: Wanting to believe

Sunday, March 28, 2010

Wanting to believe

GS Don Morris, Ph.D.

Numbers, numbers everywhere, what do they mean? In today’s world of information dissemination all sides of a political argument seem to find security in the “right set of numbers”. Focus groups, language analysis experts and pollsters are at the call of the seller-there is no end to the flood of data we are receiving.
For example, one poll posted today says that USA Jews prefer Obama to Netanyahu (15% more popular). Inside this same poll Obama maintained his popularity with 59% of American Jews even after the President displayed disrespect to PM Netanyahu. Another stat that caught my eye was the pollster Gerstein indicated that 55% of American Jews supported Obama criticizing Israel. 1 One would conclude that the USA Jewish population is distant from Israel’s political stance and Israel should take heed. Permit two of many points to be made: 1. Nowhere in the “news” story were the details of the poll presented, i.e., target population polled, design of poll. 2. The poll was sponsored, e.g., paid for, by none other than J-Street. This is a professed Progressive or Left Wing organization that indicates it is pro-Israel. To say this is under dispute is putting it mildly. This poll is in direct contrast with polls in Israel that find only 9% of Israelis think Obama is pro-Israel. Like I said one can find numbers to support any narrative.
Why all the fuss over “the numbers”? Simply put they are used as propaganda to support one’s position and thereby develop and promote public opinion that is hopefully listened to by the elected officials. More often than not, in a democracy, these eventually help to shape the policies of respective countries. Of course politicians use these same tactics to influence the general population-it is a two-way street.
Besides the numbers we know that rhetoric can be even more powerful as a tool to have the public believe in a perspective and/or current leader. Certainly how one delivers a speech dramatically influences how one is perceived and in recent history how one is elected. Mr. Obama was elected because of the perception he was different, cared more about people and was sensitive to America’s “miserable” standing on the world stage. He even convinced people that he supported and continues to support Israel. Let us set aside “the numbers” and the eloquent rhetoric of the President and examine what he has actually done, i.e., actions speak louder than words.
An old saying shared often to me by my parents when I was younger, “you become who you choose as friends”. There are multiple variations of this and they all mean that we are dramatically influenced by the people we admire and associate with-is this not your experience? Did you not “hang out” with individuals you enjoyed and/or yearned to be with or accepted by? This is a perfectly human behavior. So who were Mr. Obama’s “friends” who in turn may have helped shape his points of view? By now you know many on this list, from his Pastor Wright to his extreme left wing colleague charged with bombing public buildings (Bill Ayers). These were not casual acquaintances; he interacted with them for decades. Here are some additional influences upon his evolving view of social justice in the world: Rashid Khalidi, Ali Abunimah, Bernardine Dohrn, and even the anti-Semitic Farrakhan.2
Many others have discussed this part of Obama’s social and intellectual associations. Suffice it to say, given these individuals, his documented university experiences and his only “work experience as a community organizer, coupled with his long term interaction with ACORN through to his Presidency present an individual, over time, who associated with those who were and are to this day anti-Israel and frankly do not care for Jews. No conservative Jews among his “posse.”
The preceding certainly influenced Mr. Obama as he put together his team of advisors. Only a fraction of his desired appointees and actual appointees are to follow-please notice the nature of their backgrounds, philosophies and previous activities.3
Charles Freeman-aborted appointment to Chair of President’s National Intelligence Council -This is the man who declared on more than one occasion that he thinks all of America's problems with the Islamic world can be traced to its supposed open-ended support of the Jewish state.
Samantha Power is a product of the International Crisis Group, a think tank heavily funded by billionaire George Soros. She stopped short of saying Israel committed genocide in 2002 in Gaza.
Robert Malley is a good friend with Bashir Assad of Syria-has been close since 2006. It does appear that Mr. Malley has quite the influence over Obama and his decisions. Seems that Malley persuaded Obama to suspend enforcement of sanctions against Syria-remember they were on our terror list. He even had Obama reopen a US Embassy in Damascus-remember why we closed it?
Frederic Hof-this is the man Obama has recommended for the post in Damascus. He is an Arabist. He called the territories of Judea and Samaria “a cancer killing the Oslo Process.”
Chuck Hagel was appointed as an Intelligence Aide to the President. This is the same man who spoke at the pro-Arab J-Street “conference”. This is part of what he said: “…meeting the demand of the Palestinian Authority for a new Arab state within Israel’s current borders “is central, not peripheral, to U.S. vital security interests in combating terrorism.” He also said that the “special relationship” between the United States and Israel “must not come at the expense of our Arab relationships.”4
Zbigniew Brzezinski and Brent Scowcroft are two “unofficial” advisors to Obama. You remember them, yes? Brzezinski is a former member of the carter Administration and works with Samatha Power on the board of the anti-Israel International Crisis Group. He ridiculed Israel’s concern for Iran’s push for nuclear weapons. Scowcroft was the hard line advocate against Israel during his days with George H.W. Bush. Scowcroft, Board member of US Middle East Project created a Board including 7 Arab members that favored imposing a Fatah/Hamas regime in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.
It has been Mr. Scowcroft who has advocated loudly and continuously to keep the Palestinian plight on the front burner. He is very influential with Mr. Obama and we witness this every day. There are so many others to mention such as General James Jones and Susan Rice. Jones and other Obama officials who embarrassed IDF COS in Washington about a year ago-does this not sound familiar? Rice, she immediately asked for a seat on the UN’s “Human Rights Council”-this is hardly a pro-Israel group. For more thorough analysis of these advisors please read Bill Mehlman’s article listed in my endnotes.
The point is obvious-President Obama has surrounded himself with individuals who do not like Israel and suggest the USA begin a separation process. Several of his “advisors” border on being anti-Semitic. He hears every day, from “his people”, comments that bash Israel and their dislike for Jews. These are people who tell him to appease, appease, appease the Arabs and with several useful idiot type Jews pushing him on, it is no wonder Obama has arrived at his current stance vis ‘a vis Israel.
What messages would you be hearing each day if you had these and others with like viewpoints in your ear all the time? Let’s face it, the President has many items on his daily agenda and does not have time to do the research. This is the role and responsibility of his “team”. Couple this fact of life with his predisposition to the ideology of socialism and his years of tutelage by far left wing individuals his current actions are not surprising.
Let me ask you, when you invite a friend to your home for an evening of good discourse and dinner do you actually sit down with your guests and break bread with them? Would you consider it rude to tell your guests that you and your wife, upset with some things you may have discussed, are having dinner alone in the dining room-your guests can eat in the kitchen. This is how you treat a friend? Oh, then you announce this to your entire neighborhood and send out tweets and messages on facebook what you have done; you think this is how to act with a true friend?
Yet this is precisely what Mr. Obama did with the PM of Israel last week-you all heard some version of the story. This has become a tactic used by him and members of his staff. If you do not get what you want or do not like what you are told, then create a humiliating scene. I remember this from my upper elementary, junior high school days.
Let’s be honest and at least acknowledge that those we choose to associate with over time influence us. Our beliefs are formed by what we learn and what we experience. Ideologies are formed, learned and then these become the lens through which we view the world. Mr. Obama is no different than any of us in this regard-simply notice who he has chosen to make up his support team and group.
I understand the need to believe in something and/or someone. I also know needing and wanting to believe are two different modes of viewing the world. I offer that needing to believe takes personal power away from the individual and puts it into the hands of others. Wanting something really is about conveying information to another person understanding that in the end it is up to the individual (to me) to make a choice/decision. For multiple reasons Americans needed to believe in someone different than the previous leaders-I get it.
However, the very act of needing gave away your personal responsibility to know the facts. To hang onto your belief, that the current Administration from Obama through his advisors to his worker bees in the field, authentically support Israel is the perfect storm for “Needing to believe” in something that is simply not born out by the facts. Yes, I do understand that operating out of a position of need does not initially enable one to recognize or even acknowledge this possibility.

As someone who chooses to live in Israel, is an owner of two small businesses employing Jewish, Arab and Christian Israeli citizens I do challenge everyone to step back for a moment and consider the possibility the preceding is correct. Perhaps there are other solutions than the Obama Administration is opting to use. Maybe it is possible to coexist-I know that the path the President wants us to travel is not going to lead us to peace and harmony. Unfortunately, he is on a well-trodden path so many have been down before him!

Endnotes
1. Benhorin,Yitzhak. “Poll: US Jews prefer Obama to Netanyahu”, YNET News, March 28, 2010.
2. Haltman, Michael. http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-41853
3. Mehlman, Bill. “Detailed Expose Of Obama's Anti-Israel Appointees In Key National Security Positions”, http://www.rightsidenews.com/200904304607/culture-wars/detailed-expose-of-obamas-anti-israel-appointees-in-key-national-security-positions.html
4. Aggregated by Tzvi Ben Gedalyahu. “Anti-Israel Appointees in Key National Security Positions,” Chuck Hagel as Intelligence Aide”, http://www.israelated.net/node/84210 March 15, 2010

No comments:

The IDF’s Minorities in Numbers and Pictures

In honor of IDF Diversity Week, we present diversity through numbers and pictures. Each year, more and more Muslims, Christians, Druze, Bedouin and immigrants from around the world take on the responsibility of defending Israel.

MUSLIMS:

Muslim Arab Israelis are not required to draft in the IDF, but there are many who volunteer. In 2013, there were over 200 Muslims serving in the IDF and over 300 in the reserves.

Bedouins:

Bedouins are nomadic Muslims who were in Israel when modern borders were set in place and are now considered Israeli citizens. They are not required to draft but a growing number choose to enlist. In 2012, there were over 1,400 Bedouin Muslim soldiers doing regular IDF service and almost 1,500 in the reserves.

Read more:http://www.idfblog.com/2014/02/27/truth-idf-numbers-pictures/#more-34027

Are you aware that in 2013, Middle class taxes go up-significantly?

In January of next year, the federal income tax rate for middle-class taxpayers is scheduled to rise from 25 percent to 28 percent, and the payroll tax is scheduled to rise from 13.3 percent to 15.3 percent… This drives the marginal tax rate based on the aforementioned three taxes to 48.12 percent. Add in state and local property, corporate, excise, and other state and local taxes, and the percentage of each additional dollar that is taxed hovers around 50 percent… When half of each additional dollar earned is taxed away, taxpayers experience a disincentive to start businesses or expand existing ones. This leads to fewer jobs being created.

Why is HAMAS Inside Tampa Schools?

Clare Lopez

Kelly Miliziano, who teaches history classes at Steinbrenner High School in the Tampa, Florida area apparently thinks it’s perfectly OK to invite a senior official of a HAMAS-affiliated organization into her classroom to discuss Islam with her students. According to local media reports, not only has this been going on for years, but in spite of the civil and criminal proceedings that could result from such reckless negligence, the Hillsborough County school superintendent, Mary Ellen Elia, and the chairman of the school board, Candy Olson, also expressed approval for students under their responsibility to be exposed repeatedly to guest speaker, Hassan Shibly, who is the Executive Director for the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) in the Tampa area.
More...

Did You Know... Ignoring the Call to Islam will Bring Jihad

‘Conquest through Da’wa [proselytizing] that is what we hope for. We will conquer Europe, we will conquer America! Not through sword but through Da’wa.’
-- Yousef al-Qaradawi , Muslim Brotherhood spiritual leader The Arabic word ‘Da’wa’ means the “call to Islam.” But do not think that Da’wa is the same thing as an invitation to an optional holiday event. The classical Islamic doctrine of jihad mandates that enemies must be given the opportunity to convert to Islam or pay the jizya tax before it is permissible to attack them.
Clare M. Lopez

Who is being discriminated-facts tell the truth

Religious bias

Hate crimes motivated by religious bias accounted for 1,409 offenses reported by law enforcement. A breakdown of the bias motivation of religious-bias offenses showed:

65.4 percent were anti-Jewish.
13.2 percent were anti-Islamic.
9.5 percent were anti-other religion, i.e., those not specified.
4.3 percent were anti-Catholic.
3.8 percent were anti-multiple religions, group.
3.3 percent were anti-Protestant.
0.5 percent were anti-Atheism/Agnosticism/etc.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2010/narratives/hate-crime-2010-incidents-and-offenses.

On March 31, 1977, the Dutch newspaper Trouw published an interview

with PLO executive committee member Zahir Muhsein. Here's what he said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct "Palestinian people" to oppose Zionism.

For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

In March 1977, Zahir Muhsein, a PLO executive, said:

"The Palestinian people does not exist. The creation of a Palestinian state is only a means for continuing our struggle against the state of Israel for our Arab unity. In reality today there is no difference between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. Only for political and tactical reasons do we speak today about the existence of a Palestinian people, since Arab national interests demand that we posit the existence of a distinct Palestinian people to oppose Zionism."

"For tactical reasons, Jordan, which is a sovereign state with defined borders, cannot raise claims to Haifa and Jaffa, while as a Palestinian, I can undoubtedly demand Haifa, Jaffa, Beer-Sheva and Jerusalem. However, the moment we reclaim our right to all of Palestine, we will not wait even a minute to unite Palestine and Jordan."

The Arab Apartheid

Ben-Dror Yemini
In 1948, the Arab countries refused to accept the UN partition proposal and they launched a war of annihilation against the State of Israel which had barely been established. All precedents in this matter showed that the party that starts the war - and with a declaration of annihilation, yet - pays a price for it. Between 550,000 and 710,000 Arabs fled because of the war and a larger number of 850,000 Jews were expelled or fled from Arab countries (the "Jewish nakba").
Population exchanges and expulsions were the norm at that time, occurring in dozens of other conflict points and affecting about 52 million people. In all the population exchange precedents that occurred during or at the end of an armed conflict, there was no return of refugees to the previous region, which had turned into a new national state.
Only the Arab states acted completely differently from the rest of the world. Instead of assimilating the refugees, they crushed them despite the fact that they were their coreligionists and members of the Arab nation - instituting a regime of apartheid. So the "nakba" was not caused by the actual dispossession, which had also been experienced by tens of millions of others. The "nakba" is the story of the apartheid, oppression, abuse and denial of rights suffered by the Arab refugees at the hands of the Arab countries. (Maariv)

International Law and Military Operations in Practice - Col. Richard Kemp

"Islamist fighting groups study the international laws of armed conflict carefully and they understand it well. They know that a British or Israeli commander and his men are bound by international law and the rules of engagement that flow from it. They then do their utmost to exploit what they view as one of their enemy's main weaknesses. Their very modus operandi is built on the correct assumption that Western armies will normally abide by the rules, while these insurgents employ a deliberate policy of operating consistently outside international law. "

Lost Historical Moments

What Rabin’s last Knesset speech really said:repudiation of a Palestinian state

Rabin ruled out a fully sovereign Palestinian state :

“We view the permanent solution in the framework of State of Israel which will include most of the area of the Land of Israel as it was under the rule of the British Mandate, and alongside it a Palestinian entity which will be a home to most of the Palestinian residents living in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. We would like this to be an entity which is less than a state, and which will independently run the lives of the Palestinians under its authority.”

Rabin ruled out a total withdrawal from Judea and Samaria and thus a return to the pre-June 1967 borders :

“The borders of the State of Israel, during the permanent solution, will be beyond the lines which existed before the Six Day War. We will not return to the 4 June 1967 lines.”

Rabin ruled out withdrawing form the Jordan Valley:

“The security border of the State of Israel will be located in the Jordan Valley, in the broadest meaning of that term.”

Rabin ruled out uprooting settlement blocs, like the Gush Katif bloc in Gaza (which was subsequently uprooted by former Prime Minister Ariel Sharon):

“The establishment of blocs of settlements in Judea and Samaria, like the one in Gush Katif.

AND

Rabin ruled out removing any settlement before coming to a full peace agreement with the Palestinians:

“I want to remind you: we committed ourselves, that is, we came to an agreement, and committed ourselves before the Knesset, not to uproot a single settlement in the framework of the interim agreement, and not to hinder building for natural growth.”

Rabin insisted on Israel retaining full security control of the borders with Egypt and Jordan, contrary to Israel’s relinquishment of the Philadelphia Corridor on the border with Egypt:

“The responsibility for external security along the borders with Egypt and Jordan, as well as control over the airspace above all of the territories and Gaza Strip maritime zone, remains in our hands.”

Correcting Oslo Myths-Part 2

3) Kuttab laments that the post-1993 Oslo process resulted in a Palestinian Authority "whose ministers and legislators are not guaranteed passage between Gaza and the West Bank ...."

Before free passage or other perquisites, PA leaders were obligated, among other things, to eliminate the terrorist infrastructure in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, end anti-Israeli, antisemitic incitement in schools, mosques, and communications media, and resolve all outstanding issues through peaceful negotiations. They met none of these commitments, sometimes bolstering terrorism and greatly increasing incitement.

4) Kuttab complains that under Oslo the PA got "lightly armed police ---- but no real sovereignty over the land or contiguity between our communities in Gaza and the West Bank."

Oslo agreements repeatedly were revised, regardless of Palestinian non-compliance, until the authorized number of police grew from 8,000 to 40,000. Though they were to be the only armed forces in the territories, Israeli estimates early in the second intifada put the number of gunmen - police, "security services," terrorists, and armed gangs - at 85,000. Their armament reportedly included not only heavy machine guns and rocket-propelled grenades, but also anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles.

Sovereignty was to be negotiated in the envisioned 1998 "final status" talks - after a five-year period of confidence-building. Palestinian leadership chronically undermined the process. Palestinian terrorism made the 1993 - 1998 Oslo period more deadly for Israelis than the 15 years preceding it.

The United States doesn't have contiguity between the lower 48 states and Alaska and Hawaii; territorial contiguity between the West Bank and Gaza Strip - that is, through the 20 miles of Israeli territory between them - was never promised and would destroy Israeli contiguity.

5) "Palestinians have been made to endure hundreds of checkpoints in the West Bank, an eight-foot wall deep in our territories, and tight Israeli control over borders."

The security barrier is not "deep in Palestinian territories," but rather encompasses less than 8 percent of Judea and Samaria, and is mostly a fence, rarely a wall; the land in question is not "our [Palestinian] territories" but disputed territory to which, according to the authors of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, Jews as well as Arabs have claims; and there are no international borders, only the 1949 armistice lines with Jordan. Under 242, borders remain to be negotiated. As for checkpoints - like the security barrier and "tight Israeli control" - Palestinian Arabs precipitated these measures themselves. No terrorism and there would be no fence or tight Israeli control and few checkpoints - like before the first intifada.

Correcting Some Oslo Myths

1) In Oslo "Israeli, Palestinian and other world leaders promised that ... Palestinian sovereignty would be solidified."

No, they didn't. The 1993 Declaration of Principles and subsequent Oslo agreements outlined a process by which final status negotiations about the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be reached. The process required an end to anti-Israel terrorism and incitement and a commitment to peaceful negotiations. The PA, Fatah, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and other terrorist groups, sabotaged the process from the start.

2) "The reality is that, in defiance of U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, which states that it is inadmissible to occupy land by force, Palestinian territories are still under foreign military occupation."
Wrong again. Resolution 242 (1967) does note "the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war." It also affirms the right of every state in the area "to live in peace with secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force." There were no "Palestinian territories." Jordan occupied the West Bank, Egypt controlled Gaza. Israel did not have "secure and recognized boundaries," so retention of some of those territories was possible under 242. Israel is not a "foreign" military occupier in the West Bank but, pending final negotiations, the lawful military administrator as a result of a successful war of self-defense.

Doc's Talk