Doc's Talk: Chuck Hagel, Anti-Semitism, and American Jewish Apathy

Thursday, January 31, 2013

Chuck Hagel, Anti-Semitism, and American Jewish Apathy

Lauri B. Regan

"Israel Firster," "Jewish Lobby," "Fifth Column," and "Dual Loyalty" are several of the terms used to describe American Jews who care about Israel's survival in the face of very real and imminently dangerous and existential threats to her long-term viability. And notwithstanding Colin Powell's assertions to the contrary, the use of such terms on their face has always been considered anti-Semitic. But with the nomination of Chuck Hagel as Obama's choice to head up the Pentagon, the mainstreaming of anti-Semitism has taken a new direction and may very well be here to stay.

Hagel will appear before the Senate Armed Services Committee today in the first step to joining Obama's cabinet as secretary of defense. Hagel's confirmation moved a step closer to fruition when Senator Chuck Schumer announced two weeks ago, "Based on several key assurances provided by Senator Hagel, I am currently prepared to vote for his confirmation." Schumer is Jewish, but, as is true of almost all liberal American Jews, he is a far cry from being considered a card-carrying member of the Israel Firster crowd. He is a Democrat who was silent just a few months ago in the face of boos and hisses from Democratic delegates reacting to the inclusion of Jerusalem and God in their party's platform.

But why should anyone expect Schumer to act selflessly in the interest of the American people whom he represents and the Jewish people living across the globe whose very survival depends on a supportive American government? When Schumer votes "yea" to Hagel's confirmation, he will be marching in lockstep with the 68% of American Jews who voted for Barack Obama in the past two elections (that number was even higher in Obama's 2008 win). Schumer and American Jews are selfish individuals who care little for the survival of the Jewish homeland or for strong national security here at home. Schumer's concern in particular is his political career, since he hopes to replace Harry Reid as the Senate Majority Leader. And in the case of American Jews, they vote to ensure free abortions for all, gay marriage, expansion of the entitlement state, and various other social concerns.

How do I know that Schumer cares little for Israel? Hagel's record on Israel is clear, and much has been written on the subject. (And not by the Jewish Lobby as Hagel labeled those who are concerned about Israel's well-being.) Analysts, commentators, scholars, and journalists on both sides of the aisle who care immensely about ensuring that good trumps evil in the world and who understand the strategic and global benefits to having a strong U.S.-Israeli relationship have spoken out.

Schumer's public statement at the end of his 90-minute meeting with Hagel reflected some of the most asinine reasoning I have ever heard from a public figure (which is pretty difficult to accomplish, given four years of the Obama-Biden administration under our belts, a Pelosi reign that would be laughable were it not so devastating, and the ongoing disastrous "leadership" of Reid in the Senate). Schumer rationalized (could he really believe this garbage, or does he just think that Americans are dumb enough to buy into whatever the Democrats espouse?):

I know some will question whether Senator Hagel's assurances are merely attempts to quiet critics as he seeks confirmation to this critical post. But I don't think so. Senator Hagel realizes the situation in the Middle East has changed, with Israel in a dramatically more endangered position than it was even five years ago. His views are genuine, and reflect this new reality.

What exactly has changed for Israel in the past five years? Granted, the Arab Spring has made the neighborhood that much more unstable, but do the Chuckies truly believe that five years ago Israel was not in danger from her neighbors? Are they both so ignorant as to believe that Hagel's positions were justified five years ago because the poor Palestinians were the victims of Israeli aggression but that now that Hagel is up for the big leagues, the dynamics have changed? Were they not aware that five years ago, Iran's Ahmadinejad was calling for Israel to be wiped off the map and pursuing nuclear weapons without sanctions slowing him down? (Oh, right: Hagel knows about that, because he was against sanctions and in favor of chit-chatting with the mullahs).

Why were the Iranian-made weapons that flowed through the smuggling tunnels from Egypt to Gaza insignificant five years ago and suddenly game-changing today? Why did Hagel believe that Hamas, Hezb'allah, Syria, and Iran were of little concern to Israel's survival five years ago, but a week after Obama nominates him to a cabinet position, Hagel has suddenly seen the light?

And why should anyone trust Chuck Schumer's opinion on any of this? Schumer seems to have completely ignored the fact that Hagel chairs the Atlantic Council with well-known anti-Semite Chas Freeman. This is the same Chas Freeman whose nomination in 2009 failed due to his open hostility to Israel and who then blamed the Israel Lobby. Only a month ago, Freeman stated:

In some countries, like the United States, Israel can rely upon a "fifth column" of activist sympathizers to amplify its messages, to rebut and discredit statements that contradict its arguments, facts, and fabrications, and to impugn the moral standing of those who make such statements.

And just last month, Hagel's organization posted an article entitled "Israel's Apartheid State" on the home page of its website. But Schumer is sure that Hagel's conversion is sincere and reliable. If he truly believes that, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell him.

How do I know that American Jews care little for Israel and quite a lot about free abortions for all? The anecdotal evidence is overwhelming. From the hundred Jewish women who yelled at me about the importance of electing the pro-choice Obama rather than the pro-Israel Romney while I sat on a panel at a speaking engagement prior to the election to the e-mails my mother received from friends chastising her for not ensuring that her granddaughters be able to obtain abortions, Jewish women seemingly care little about anything else.

But it is not just anecdotal evidence. American Jews voted overwhelmingly for a man who wears his disdain for Israel on his sleeve as if it's a badge of honor. They pulled the lever for the guy whose four years in office prodigiously prove what he meant when he promised daylight in the U.S./Israeli relationship. American Jews come out in droves to support the Democratic Party, notwithstanding the clear and convincing evidence that Republicans are far more supportive of the Jewish State than are those who inhabit the other side of the aisle. Israel is not their voting issue; abortion is their cause du jour (or perhaps, of the century).

With anti-Semitism on the rise across the world and Jews being told not to wear a kippah, Star of David, or any other indication of their religious faith in countries across Europe, one would think that Jews in the Diaspora, who recognized Holocaust Remembrance Day this week, would wake up to the dangers that confront their people. One would think that when the U.K. starts to unravel, and public pronouncements of blood libels and anti-Semitic comments become common occurrences, American Jews might determine that electing leaders who will support Israel in times of peril is of utmost importance.

Instead, American Jews read the anti-Israel op-eds of Thomas Friedman; attend lectures given by Peter Beinart, who supports a BDS campaign against products coming out of Judea and Samaria; and continue to vote overwhelmingly for those who are openly hostile to the Jewish State. Would that the lessons of just 63 years ago became imprinted in the psyches of these people.

Rather, Professor Richard Landes insightfully observed that these Jews "are subtly engaged in a proxy honor killing of Israel." It is proxy because they have enabled others to do the killing for them -- people like Beinart, Freidman, Jeremy Ben Ami of J Street, and others like them who are embarrassed by Israel are enabling and abetting its destruction.

Whatever the outcome of the Hagel hearings, liberal American Jews sat back and did nothing. While 400 Christian leaders went to Washington to lobby against Hagel, AIPAC, the AJC, and other Jewish organizations remained silent. The Endowment for Middle East Truth's founder, Sarah Stern, observed, "Chuck Hagel represents everything that is inimical to the survival of the State of Israel." What will it take for the people who should care the most to understand the implications of their apathy?

Page Printed from: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/../2013/01/chuck_hagel_anti-semitism_and_american_jewish_apathy.html at January 31, 2013 - 12:25:16 PM CST

1 comment:

Hans said...: If this does not confirm BO's vile hatred of Isreal, I do not know what would.

This also confirm the ignorance of the typical American Jewish voter, as well.; 11:45 PM

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