HUDAK ASSERTS UNEQUIVOCAL SUPPORT OF ISRAEL’S RIGHT TO DEFEND ITSELF
June 4th – (Danvers, MA) Bill Hudak, United States Congressional Candidate for the 6th District of Massachusetts, earlier today stressed the importance of the United States asserting its firm support of Israel. See complete article:
http://www.hudakforcongress.com/blog/june-friday-2010/hudak-asserts-unequivocal-support-israels-right-defend-itself
People may also find it published as a Note on Bill Hudak's Facebook page.
http://tinyurl.com/22wyr6z
Tuesday, June 8, 2010
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Bill Hudak's Position Paper on US/ISRAEL relationship
Hudak Issues Position Paper on IsraelBill Hudak for U.S. Congress
United States – Israel Relationship
Position Paper May 20, 2010
My support for the nation of Israel is solid and unwavering.
Israel and the United States share common fundamental values of individual freedom, democracy, religious faith, and the pursuit of free enterprise and open markets. For over sixty years, Israel has been America’s solid ally in the Middle East, the one nation in the Middle East with the conviction to stand on these principles for the good of its own people as well as its Muslim neighbors. Israel’s desires and commitments to peace in the region have been steadfast, despite the constant threat and acts of terror launched against it by its neighbors.
If elected to the United States Congress from the Sixth District of Massachusetts, I pledge to continue to advance America’s commitments to stand by its ally, to insure Israel’s qualitative military advantage as it seeks peace through strength, to oppose efforts by Iran to obtain or develop nuclear weapons, and to support Israel’s desire to successfully achieve a two state solution negotiated on its own accord.
Peace Through Strength
I strongly believe that the only way in which Israel can achieve a lasting peace is to rest assured that the United States will stand firmly behind it militarily and economically. In that regard, we must continue our commitment to assure Israel’s qualitative military advantage, provide aid, and assure economic superiority. That commitment must be full and total, and publicly acknowledged.
Israel’s military must maintain the ability to defend itself against any conventional threats by its surrounding neighbors and the organized terrorist threats in the region. I support the ten year security agreement reached in August 2007 which will continue to provide approximately three billion dollars in annual aid to Israel to help Israel deal with existing threats. This assistance not only helps Israel maintain its military advantage, but boosts America’s own national security, provides overseas markets for our goods, and creates jobs here at home.
I also oppose efforts by anti-Israel factions which seek to use the United Nations to undermine and demean Israel’s determination to remain strong in its quest for peace. Unlike my opponent, Congressman John Tierney, who only voted “present”, I would have immediately joined the other 344 House members and voted in favor of H.R. 867, to openly condemn the Goldstone Report and to urge the Obama administration to completely disregard it going forward. That report contained a myriad of flaws inherent in it from the outset, and the subject matter was neither objectively investigated nor fairly reported in its
conclusions. In particular, the Goldstone report’s false accusations that Israel committed war crimes simply because it defended itself and its innocent civilian populations, as well as Palestinians, against a barrage of Hamas launched missiles and attacks, can never be justified or supported.
My commitment to support Israel’s quest for peace through strength would go farther than other recent actions by the Obama administration generally, and the congressman of this district in particular. Those actions evidence a clear erosion of our nation’s previous steadfast support of Israel which, unless checked immediately, threatens to increase tensions rather than foster peace.
President Obama’s failure to meet with and accord Prime Minister Netanyahu during his trip to Washington the full courtesy owed to the leader of one of our staunchest allies in order to force some type of concession was an insult unbecoming the head of our nation. Congressman Tierney’s signature on a petition with 44 other democratic representatives urging President Obama to force Israel to open its borders to Gaza signals his desire to support Hamas over Israel; an act which demonstrates his waning support of Israel in favor of the Arab states. It further shows an indifference to the safety of the Israeli population as dropping the blockade would allow further violent attacks on Israel’s people and sovereignty. I would never have signed or supported such a petition; instead, to the contrary, unlike Congressman Tierney, I would have signed the bipartisan letter addressed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama urging reaffirmation of a strong U.S./Israeli relationship.
Without reservation, it is my position that America must constantly strive to support Israel publicly. Israel’s agreement to self-impose a moratorium on construction of apartments in the West Bank was not an agreement to cease such in Jerusalem, and the public condemnation of announcements for further homes in Jerusalem by Vice President Biden and others was counterproductive to Israel’s efforts to seek peace. This type of public criticism only serves to encourage Palestine and the Arabs to wait for the United States to pressure Israel to make concessions rather than enter the negotiations in a neutral, good faith manner. We must constantly strive to resolve any U.S. – Israel misunderstandings or differences which may arise in private, through trust and confidence, rather than airing them publicly.
Israel’s Self-Negotiated Two State Solution
I strongly support Israel’s attempt to negotiate, on its own, a two state solution directly with its Arab neighbors. The United States must strongly support that initiative, and coordinate closely with Israel, but avoid efforts by outside entities to impose solutions.
Israel has clearly demonstrated its desire to negotiate, and as gestures of good faith has previously withdrawn unilaterally from Gaza and Lebanon. In return, terrorist entities, including Hamas and Hizbullah, now control those regions and remain by their terrorist ideology and acts constant threats to the safety and autonomy of Israel. Certainly, we must be mindful of those historical facts going forward, and stand with Israel’s desire to self-negotiate only with those non-terrorist entities who can truly partner and enforce a peaceful solution.
Accordingly, I support a peace negotiated by Israel for a two-state solution, but that solution must be premises on several factors: (1) Jerusalem, must remain the undivided capital of Israel, (2) Israel’s security must be strictly assured and not imposed by outside parties, (3) there must be guarantees that Palestinians will abide by agreements which have been signed by their past leaders, (4) Israel’s borders must be secured and the safety of its people must be assured. I believe that a strict return to the 1967 borders would be counter to these objectives and would oppose efforts for a strong and lasting peace.
Above all, the United States must always support Israel by encouraging the Arab states to recognize Israel’s right to exist. We must always be mindful that the Hamas charter, in particular, provides that Israel exists only as long as the Muslims desire it to exist; in effect, calling for its ultimate demise. Encouraging other Arab states to adopt our mutual belief in democracy, freedom, and free enterprise offers the greatest potential to lessen tensions going forward.
The Iranian Threat
Iran remains as the largest threat to Israel and a true danger to our own interests. For nearly 20 years, it engaged in a secret nuclear program until it was exposed in 2002. Iran is a leading sponsor of terrorism, and a nuclear armed Iran would threaten the region and world in a completely unacceptable manner.
Iran President Ahmadinejad has made clear that he does not believe the Holocaust ever occurred, has expressed his view that Israel should be destroyed, and has expressed his disrespect for all Jews. Iran supports Hamas and Hizbullah in Gaza and Lebanon, respectively, and is clearly intent on wiping Israel off the map. Not content on its own region, Iran is also pursuing alliances with terrorists in Argentina and Venezuela. Its desire to obtain nuclear weapons can have only one purpose in mind: to advance its interests and threaten the safety of the Middle East and the world.
I strongly support all measures designed to compel Iran to cease efforts to develop a nuclear capability and to cause them to cease efforts in the regard, and would strongly support and propose efforts to sanction Iran severely in an effort to compel compliance. This includes concluding, and strengthening, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009, H.R. 2194 (passed by the House and Senate, and now in conference) in light of evidence that Iran is clearly engaging in deception to advance development of nuclear weapons. I also support the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009, H.R. 1327, authorizing state pension funds to divest from companies that invest in Iran, and would work toward bringing those principles to conclusion.
United States – Israel Relationship
Position Paper May 20, 2010
My support for the nation of Israel is solid and unwavering.
Israel and the United States share common fundamental values of individual freedom, democracy, religious faith, and the pursuit of free enterprise and open markets. For over sixty years, Israel has been America’s solid ally in the Middle East, the one nation in the Middle East with the conviction to stand on these principles for the good of its own people as well as its Muslim neighbors. Israel’s desires and commitments to peace in the region have been steadfast, despite the constant threat and acts of terror launched against it by its neighbors.
If elected to the United States Congress from the Sixth District of Massachusetts, I pledge to continue to advance America’s commitments to stand by its ally, to insure Israel’s qualitative military advantage as it seeks peace through strength, to oppose efforts by Iran to obtain or develop nuclear weapons, and to support Israel’s desire to successfully achieve a two state solution negotiated on its own accord.
Peace Through Strength
I strongly believe that the only way in which Israel can achieve a lasting peace is to rest assured that the United States will stand firmly behind it militarily and economically. In that regard, we must continue our commitment to assure Israel’s qualitative military advantage, provide aid, and assure economic superiority. That commitment must be full and total, and publicly acknowledged.
Israel’s military must maintain the ability to defend itself against any conventional threats by its surrounding neighbors and the organized terrorist threats in the region. I support the ten year security agreement reached in August 2007 which will continue to provide approximately three billion dollars in annual aid to Israel to help Israel deal with existing threats. This assistance not only helps Israel maintain its military advantage, but boosts America’s own national security, provides overseas markets for our goods, and creates jobs here at home.
I also oppose efforts by anti-Israel factions which seek to use the United Nations to undermine and demean Israel’s determination to remain strong in its quest for peace. Unlike my opponent, Congressman John Tierney, who only voted “present”, I would have immediately joined the other 344 House members and voted in favor of H.R. 867, to openly condemn the Goldstone Report and to urge the Obama administration to completely disregard it going forward. That report contained a myriad of flaws inherent in it from the outset, and the subject matter was neither objectively investigated nor fairly reported in its
conclusions. In particular, the Goldstone report’s false accusations that Israel committed war crimes simply because it defended itself and its innocent civilian populations, as well as Palestinians, against a barrage of Hamas launched missiles and attacks, can never be justified or supported.
My commitment to support Israel’s quest for peace through strength would go farther than other recent actions by the Obama administration generally, and the congressman of this district in particular. Those actions evidence a clear erosion of our nation’s previous steadfast support of Israel which, unless checked immediately, threatens to increase tensions rather than foster peace.
President Obama’s failure to meet with and accord Prime Minister Netanyahu during his trip to Washington the full courtesy owed to the leader of one of our staunchest allies in order to force some type of concession was an insult unbecoming the head of our nation. Congressman Tierney’s signature on a petition with 44 other democratic representatives urging President Obama to force Israel to open its borders to Gaza signals his desire to support Hamas over Israel; an act which demonstrates his waning support of Israel in favor of the Arab states. It further shows an indifference to the safety of the Israeli population as dropping the blockade would allow further violent attacks on Israel’s people and sovereignty. I would never have signed or supported such a petition; instead, to the contrary, unlike Congressman Tierney, I would have signed the bipartisan letter addressed to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama urging reaffirmation of a strong U.S./Israeli relationship.
Without reservation, it is my position that America must constantly strive to support Israel publicly. Israel’s agreement to self-impose a moratorium on construction of apartments in the West Bank was not an agreement to cease such in Jerusalem, and the public condemnation of announcements for further homes in Jerusalem by Vice President Biden and others was counterproductive to Israel’s efforts to seek peace. This type of public criticism only serves to encourage Palestine and the Arabs to wait for the United States to pressure Israel to make concessions rather than enter the negotiations in a neutral, good faith manner. We must constantly strive to resolve any U.S. – Israel misunderstandings or differences which may arise in private, through trust and confidence, rather than airing them publicly.
Israel’s Self-Negotiated Two State Solution
I strongly support Israel’s attempt to negotiate, on its own, a two state solution directly with its Arab neighbors. The United States must strongly support that initiative, and coordinate closely with Israel, but avoid efforts by outside entities to impose solutions.
Israel has clearly demonstrated its desire to negotiate, and as gestures of good faith has previously withdrawn unilaterally from Gaza and Lebanon. In return, terrorist entities, including Hamas and Hizbullah, now control those regions and remain by their terrorist ideology and acts constant threats to the safety and autonomy of Israel. Certainly, we must be mindful of those historical facts going forward, and stand with Israel’s desire to self-negotiate only with those non-terrorist entities who can truly partner and enforce a peaceful solution.
Accordingly, I support a peace negotiated by Israel for a two-state solution, but that solution must be premises on several factors: (1) Jerusalem, must remain the undivided capital of Israel, (2) Israel’s security must be strictly assured and not imposed by outside parties, (3) there must be guarantees that Palestinians will abide by agreements which have been signed by their past leaders, (4) Israel’s borders must be secured and the safety of its people must be assured. I believe that a strict return to the 1967 borders would be counter to these objectives and would oppose efforts for a strong and lasting peace.
Above all, the United States must always support Israel by encouraging the Arab states to recognize Israel’s right to exist. We must always be mindful that the Hamas charter, in particular, provides that Israel exists only as long as the Muslims desire it to exist; in effect, calling for its ultimate demise. Encouraging other Arab states to adopt our mutual belief in democracy, freedom, and free enterprise offers the greatest potential to lessen tensions going forward.
The Iranian Threat
Iran remains as the largest threat to Israel and a true danger to our own interests. For nearly 20 years, it engaged in a secret nuclear program until it was exposed in 2002. Iran is a leading sponsor of terrorism, and a nuclear armed Iran would threaten the region and world in a completely unacceptable manner.
Iran President Ahmadinejad has made clear that he does not believe the Holocaust ever occurred, has expressed his view that Israel should be destroyed, and has expressed his disrespect for all Jews. Iran supports Hamas and Hizbullah in Gaza and Lebanon, respectively, and is clearly intent on wiping Israel off the map. Not content on its own region, Iran is also pursuing alliances with terrorists in Argentina and Venezuela. Its desire to obtain nuclear weapons can have only one purpose in mind: to advance its interests and threaten the safety of the Middle East and the world.
I strongly support all measures designed to compel Iran to cease efforts to develop a nuclear capability and to cause them to cease efforts in the regard, and would strongly support and propose efforts to sanction Iran severely in an effort to compel compliance. This includes concluding, and strengthening, the Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009, H.R. 2194 (passed by the House and Senate, and now in conference) in light of evidence that Iran is clearly engaging in deception to advance development of nuclear weapons. I also support the Iran Sanctions Enabling Act of 2009, H.R. 1327, authorizing state pension funds to divest from companies that invest in Iran, and would work toward bringing those principles to conclusion.
Friday, April 23, 2010
Great Article by Alan Dershowitz
The Anti-Israel Lobby
Apr 23, 2010 12:08 am | Alan M. Dershowitz
J-Street can no longer claim to support the Jewish state.
comments | read more
J Street has gone over to the dark side. It claims to be “a pro-Israel, pro peace lobby.” It has now become neither. Its Executive Director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, has joined the off key chorus of those who falsely claim that Israel, by refusing to make peace with the Palestinians, is placing the lives of American soldiers at risk.
This claim was first attributed to Vice President Joe Biden and to General David Petraeus. It was quickly denied by them but continued to have a life of its own in the anti-Israel media. It was picked up by Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer, Pat Buchanan and others on the hard right and hard left who share a common disdain for the Jewish state. It is the most dangerous argument ever put forward by Israel bashers. It is also totally false.
It is dangerous for two reasons. First, it seeks to reduce support for Israel among Americans who, quite understandably and correctly, care deeply about American soldiers being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel has always understood this and that’s why it is one of the few American allies who has never asked the United States to put its troops in harm’s way in defense of Israeli citizens. If Americans were to believe the falsehood that Israel were to blame for American deaths caused by Islamic extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan, support for the Jewish state would suffer considerably.
It is also dangerous because its implication is that Israel must cease to exist: the basic complaint that Muslim extremists have against Israel is not what the Jewish state does, but what it is: a secular, non-Muslim, democracy that promotes equal rights for women, gays, Christians and others. Regardless of what Israel does or doesn’t do, its very existence will be anathema to Muslim extremists. So if Israel’s actions were in fact a cause of American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan–which they are not–then the only logical solution would be Israel’s disappearance. This might be acceptable to the Walts, Mearsheimers and Buchanans of the world, but it is surely not acceptable to Israel or anyone who claims to be pro-Israel.
Finally, the argument is totally false as a matter of fact. At the same time that Israel was seeking to make peace in 2000-2001 by creating a Palestinian state on the West Bank and in Gaza with a capital in East Jerusalem, Al Qaeda was planning the 9/11 attack. So Israel’s “good” actions did nothing to make America safe from Islamic terrorism. On the other hand, when Israel took tough action against Gaza last year in Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s “bad” actions did not increase American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, there is absolutely no relationship between Israel’s actions and the extent of American casualties. It is a totally phony argument based on equal parts of surmise and bigotry.
Yet this dangerous and false argument, which is being hotly debated within the Obama Administration, has now received the imprimatur of J Street. In the letter to the New York Times on April 21, 2010, Jeremy Ben-Ami, speaking on behalf of J Street, included the following paragraph:
“An analysis of the Obama administration’s calculus on Middle East policy should reflect that many in the Jewish community recognize that resolving the conflict is not only necessary to secure Israel’s future, but also critical to regional stability and American strategic interests.”
Although Ben-Ami doesn’t explicitly make a direct connection between Israeli actions and American casualties, his use of the phrase “critical to…American strategic interests,” is a well-known code word, especially these days, for the argument that there is a connection between Israeli actions and American casualties.
In lending support to that dangerous and false argument, J Street has disqualified itself from being considered “pro-Israel.” The argument is also anything but “pro peace,” since it will actually encourage Islamic extremists to target American interests in the hope that American casualties will be blamed on Israel. It will also encourage the Palestinian leadership to harden its position, in the expectation that lack of progress toward peace will result in Israel being blamed for American casualties.
Truth in advertising requires that at the very least J Street stop proclaiming itself as pro-Israel. As long as it was limiting its lobbying activities to ending the settlements, dividing Jerusalem and pressing for negotiations, it could plausibly claim the mantle of pro-Israel, despite the reality that many of its members, supporters, speakers and invited guests are virulently anti-Israel. But now that it has crossed the line into legitimating the most dangerous and false argument ever made against Israel’s security, it must stop calling itself pro-Israel. Some of its college affiliate groups have already done that. They now describe themselves as pro peace because they don’t want to burden themselves with the pro Israel label. J Street should follow their lead and end its false advertising. Or else it should abandon its anti-Israel claim that Israel is damaging American strategic interests.
=
Apr 23, 2010 12:08 am | Alan M. Dershowitz
J-Street can no longer claim to support the Jewish state.
comments | read more
J Street has gone over to the dark side. It claims to be “a pro-Israel, pro peace lobby.” It has now become neither. Its Executive Director, Jeremy Ben-Ami, has joined the off key chorus of those who falsely claim that Israel, by refusing to make peace with the Palestinians, is placing the lives of American soldiers at risk.
This claim was first attributed to Vice President Joe Biden and to General David Petraeus. It was quickly denied by them but continued to have a life of its own in the anti-Israel media. It was picked up by Steven Walt and John Mearsheimer, Pat Buchanan and others on the hard right and hard left who share a common disdain for the Jewish state. It is the most dangerous argument ever put forward by Israel bashers. It is also totally false.
It is dangerous for two reasons. First, it seeks to reduce support for Israel among Americans who, quite understandably and correctly, care deeply about American soldiers being killed in Iraq and Afghanistan. Israel has always understood this and that’s why it is one of the few American allies who has never asked the United States to put its troops in harm’s way in defense of Israeli citizens. If Americans were to believe the falsehood that Israel were to blame for American deaths caused by Islamic extremists in Iraq and Afghanistan, support for the Jewish state would suffer considerably.
It is also dangerous because its implication is that Israel must cease to exist: the basic complaint that Muslim extremists have against Israel is not what the Jewish state does, but what it is: a secular, non-Muslim, democracy that promotes equal rights for women, gays, Christians and others. Regardless of what Israel does or doesn’t do, its very existence will be anathema to Muslim extremists. So if Israel’s actions were in fact a cause of American deaths in Iraq and Afghanistan–which they are not–then the only logical solution would be Israel’s disappearance. This might be acceptable to the Walts, Mearsheimers and Buchanans of the world, but it is surely not acceptable to Israel or anyone who claims to be pro-Israel.
Finally, the argument is totally false as a matter of fact. At the same time that Israel was seeking to make peace in 2000-2001 by creating a Palestinian state on the West Bank and in Gaza with a capital in East Jerusalem, Al Qaeda was planning the 9/11 attack. So Israel’s “good” actions did nothing to make America safe from Islamic terrorism. On the other hand, when Israel took tough action against Gaza last year in Operation Cast Lead, Israel’s “bad” actions did not increase American casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. In fact, there is absolutely no relationship between Israel’s actions and the extent of American casualties. It is a totally phony argument based on equal parts of surmise and bigotry.
Yet this dangerous and false argument, which is being hotly debated within the Obama Administration, has now received the imprimatur of J Street. In the letter to the New York Times on April 21, 2010, Jeremy Ben-Ami, speaking on behalf of J Street, included the following paragraph:
“An analysis of the Obama administration’s calculus on Middle East policy should reflect that many in the Jewish community recognize that resolving the conflict is not only necessary to secure Israel’s future, but also critical to regional stability and American strategic interests.”
Although Ben-Ami doesn’t explicitly make a direct connection between Israeli actions and American casualties, his use of the phrase “critical to…American strategic interests,” is a well-known code word, especially these days, for the argument that there is a connection between Israeli actions and American casualties.
In lending support to that dangerous and false argument, J Street has disqualified itself from being considered “pro-Israel.” The argument is also anything but “pro peace,” since it will actually encourage Islamic extremists to target American interests in the hope that American casualties will be blamed on Israel. It will also encourage the Palestinian leadership to harden its position, in the expectation that lack of progress toward peace will result in Israel being blamed for American casualties.
Truth in advertising requires that at the very least J Street stop proclaiming itself as pro-Israel. As long as it was limiting its lobbying activities to ending the settlements, dividing Jerusalem and pressing for negotiations, it could plausibly claim the mantle of pro-Israel, despite the reality that many of its members, supporters, speakers and invited guests are virulently anti-Israel. But now that it has crossed the line into legitimating the most dangerous and false argument ever made against Israel’s security, it must stop calling itself pro-Israel. Some of its college affiliate groups have already done that. They now describe themselves as pro peace because they don’t want to burden themselves with the pro Israel label. J Street should follow their lead and end its false advertising. Or else it should abandon its anti-Israel claim that Israel is damaging American strategic interests.
=
Thursday, April 22, 2010
Article by Victor Davis Hanson
Why, until now, has America always bucked the tide against Israel?
By Victor Davis Hanson
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Current American relations with our once-staunch ally Israel are at their lowest ebb in the last 50 years.
The Obama administration seems as angry at the building of Jewish apartments in Jerusalem as it is intent on reaching out to Iran and Syria, Israel's mortal enemies. President Obama himself, according to reports, has serially snubbed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A new narrative abounds in Washington that Israel's intransigence with its Arab neighbors now even endangers U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East. Obama is pushing Netanyahu's Likud government to make concessions on several fronts, from supplying power and food to Gaza, to hastened departure from the West Bank.
These tensions follow the Obama administration's new outreach to the Muslim world. Obama gave his first interview as president to the Middle East newspaper Al Arabiya, in which he politely chided past U.S. policy on the Middle East.
In his June 2009 Cairo address, the president again sought to placate the Islamic world — in part by wrongly claiming that Islamic learning had sparked the European Renaissance and Enlightenment.
Lost in all this reset-button diplomacy is introspection on why past American presidents sought to support Israel in the first place. We seem to forget why no-nonsense Harry Truman, against worldwide opposition, ensured the original creation of the Jewish state — or why more than 60 percent of Americans in most polls continue to side with Israel in its struggle to survive.
In contrast, most of the rest of the world does the math and concludes Israel is a bad investment. It has no oil; its enemies possess nearly half the world's reserves.
There is no downside in criticizing Israel, but censuring some of its radical Arab neighbors might prompt anything from an oil embargo to a terrorist response.
There are about 7 million Israelis; the Muslim and Arab population in the Middle East numbers in the hundreds of millions.
According to the academic cult of multiculturalism, it is fashionable to see pro-American, democratic and capitalist Israel as a symbol of a pernicious Western culture of oppression; its enemies are seen as underdog liberationists.
No wonder that in the ongoing dispute, most of the world adds up the pluses and minuses and concludes that it is wiser to side with Israel's foes than to become its friend. But why, until now, has America always bucked the tide?
The reason is not the so-called "Jewish lobby" here in the U.S., but because a clear majority of non-Jews supported Israel. They saw that in a sea of autocracy, Israel is a democracy and a free and open society, one quite different from its neighbors.
I suspect that when there is a final two-state settlement, Arabs wishing to remain inside Israel will be treated far more humanely as citizens than any Jews who stay on the West Bank and take their chances as residents of the new Palestinian state. We suspect that when Israel pulls back from lands won after the 1967 war, there will remain prominent calls in the Arab world to continue the withdrawal — and finish Israel altogether.
Holocaust denial is still a staple in intellectual circles of the Middle East, and serially embraced by the Iranian government.
Fashionable anti-Israeli sentiment is de rigueur in European elite society. Nearly a third of all country-specific resolutions passed by United Nations Commission on Human Rights have damned Israel — far more than anything directed at the mass-murdering regimes of Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein or the Taliban.
In contrast, America's traditional bipartisan support for Israel put the world on notice that the United States would never allow another Holocaust — or the destruction of Israel, or even serial attacks against it.
Yet if we are seen as neutral, just watch the rest of the world get the message and start piling on. Anti-Jewish terrorism will gear up again. Frontline entities like Hezbollah, Syria and Iran will ready their missiles without worry of American anger. Iran will assume we are resigned to its acquisition of the bomb. And the UN will again begin providing cover by issuing its pro forma denunciations of Israel, counting on a newly diffident United States to vote "present."
Perhaps the Obama administration genuinely believes that by pressuring Israel and reaching out to its enemies, it can at last achieve peace. Perhaps a few key figures in this administration simply do not like or trust the Jewish state — support for which now polls only 48 percent among Democratic voters (versus 85 percent among Republicans).
No matter. This administration should take a deep breath and review history. It would learn that when Israel is alone, its opportunistic enemies pile on. And then war becomes more, not less, likely.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and military historian, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal. Comment by clicking here.
Archives
© 2010, TMS
By Victor Davis Hanson
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com | Current American relations with our once-staunch ally Israel are at their lowest ebb in the last 50 years.
The Obama administration seems as angry at the building of Jewish apartments in Jerusalem as it is intent on reaching out to Iran and Syria, Israel's mortal enemies. President Obama himself, according to reports, has serially snubbed Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. A new narrative abounds in Washington that Israel's intransigence with its Arab neighbors now even endangers U.S. troops stationed in the Middle East. Obama is pushing Netanyahu's Likud government to make concessions on several fronts, from supplying power and food to Gaza, to hastened departure from the West Bank.
These tensions follow the Obama administration's new outreach to the Muslim world. Obama gave his first interview as president to the Middle East newspaper Al Arabiya, in which he politely chided past U.S. policy on the Middle East.
In his June 2009 Cairo address, the president again sought to placate the Islamic world — in part by wrongly claiming that Islamic learning had sparked the European Renaissance and Enlightenment.
Lost in all this reset-button diplomacy is introspection on why past American presidents sought to support Israel in the first place. We seem to forget why no-nonsense Harry Truman, against worldwide opposition, ensured the original creation of the Jewish state — or why more than 60 percent of Americans in most polls continue to side with Israel in its struggle to survive.
In contrast, most of the rest of the world does the math and concludes Israel is a bad investment. It has no oil; its enemies possess nearly half the world's reserves.
There is no downside in criticizing Israel, but censuring some of its radical Arab neighbors might prompt anything from an oil embargo to a terrorist response.
There are about 7 million Israelis; the Muslim and Arab population in the Middle East numbers in the hundreds of millions.
According to the academic cult of multiculturalism, it is fashionable to see pro-American, democratic and capitalist Israel as a symbol of a pernicious Western culture of oppression; its enemies are seen as underdog liberationists.
No wonder that in the ongoing dispute, most of the world adds up the pluses and minuses and concludes that it is wiser to side with Israel's foes than to become its friend. But why, until now, has America always bucked the tide?
The reason is not the so-called "Jewish lobby" here in the U.S., but because a clear majority of non-Jews supported Israel. They saw that in a sea of autocracy, Israel is a democracy and a free and open society, one quite different from its neighbors.
I suspect that when there is a final two-state settlement, Arabs wishing to remain inside Israel will be treated far more humanely as citizens than any Jews who stay on the West Bank and take their chances as residents of the new Palestinian state. We suspect that when Israel pulls back from lands won after the 1967 war, there will remain prominent calls in the Arab world to continue the withdrawal — and finish Israel altogether.
Holocaust denial is still a staple in intellectual circles of the Middle East, and serially embraced by the Iranian government.
Fashionable anti-Israeli sentiment is de rigueur in European elite society. Nearly a third of all country-specific resolutions passed by United Nations Commission on Human Rights have damned Israel — far more than anything directed at the mass-murdering regimes of Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein or the Taliban.
In contrast, America's traditional bipartisan support for Israel put the world on notice that the United States would never allow another Holocaust — or the destruction of Israel, or even serial attacks against it.
Yet if we are seen as neutral, just watch the rest of the world get the message and start piling on. Anti-Jewish terrorism will gear up again. Frontline entities like Hezbollah, Syria and Iran will ready their missiles without worry of American anger. Iran will assume we are resigned to its acquisition of the bomb. And the UN will again begin providing cover by issuing its pro forma denunciations of Israel, counting on a newly diffident United States to vote "present."
Perhaps the Obama administration genuinely believes that by pressuring Israel and reaching out to its enemies, it can at last achieve peace. Perhaps a few key figures in this administration simply do not like or trust the Jewish state — support for which now polls only 48 percent among Democratic voters (versus 85 percent among Republicans).
No matter. This administration should take a deep breath and review history. It would learn that when Israel is alone, its opportunistic enemies pile on. And then war becomes more, not less, likely.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
Victor Davis Hanson, a classicist and military historian, is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a recipient of the 2007 National Humanities Medal. Comment by clicking here.
Archives
© 2010, TMS
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Jeff Jacoby's Article on Obama's Pointless Fight with Israel
Obama's pointless fight with Israel
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
March 21, 2010
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/7090/obamas-pointless-fight-with-israel
Print Send RSS ShareThis
LAST NOVEMBER the government of Israel agreed to a 10-month moratorium on new Jewish housing in the West Bank. The moratorium did not apply to schools, synagogues, and residential units already in the pipeline; nor did it apply to eastern Jerusalem, which is home to around 180,000 Israelis -- more than a third of Jerusalem's Jewish population. Yet even with those caveats it was an unprecedented concession, intended, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, to "encourage resumption of peace talks with our Palestinian neighbors."
At the time, the Obama administration applauded Israel's announcement. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hailed it as a "move forward." George Mitchell, the president's special envoy to the Middle East, praised it as "a positive development" that "could have substantial impact on the ground" and acknowledged that "it is more than any Israeli government has done before."
So when Israel's Interior Ministry recently announced its interim approval for the construction of 1,600 new apartments in Jerusalem's Ramat Shlomo neighborhood, it was not reneging on any commitment. If anyone was guilty of bad faith in the diplomatic crisis that ensued, it was the Obama administration, which had explicitly accepted the terms of Netanyahu's building freeze in November, yet was now going back on its word.
Orthodox Jews in the religious Jerusalem neighbourhood of Ramat Shlomo.
The Israeli government was guilty at most of poor timing, since the announcement came as Vice President Joe Biden was in the country and indirect talks with the Palestinians -- who have refused for more than a year to meet face to face with the Israelis -- were scheduled to begin. The gaffe should have been waved aside as soon as Netanyahu apologized for his government's awkward announcement, which he had not known about in advance. Instead the Obama administration went nuclear. Clinton publicly blasted Israel for what she called "an insult to the United States," and upbraided Netanyahu in a blistering 45-minute phone call, with talking points scripted by the president himself.
For good measure, the State Department spokesman then demanded that Israel demonstrate "through specific actions" its commitment to peace. Forgotten, apparently, was Netanyahu's unprecedented moratorium of last November, to say nothing of the innumerable Israeli goodwill gestures, concessions, prisoner releases, and peace offers to the Palestinians that preceded it -- all of them unrequited.
When President Obama was asked Wednesday evening whether US-Israeli relations are now in a crisis, he flatly answered: "No." But an atmosphere of harsh antagonism seems to be exactly what the administration's tantrum was meant to engender.
If the president's goal was to bring Israel and the Palestinians to the negotiating table and thereby revive the so-called "peace process," he couldn't have chosen a more counterproductive tactic. The Palestinian Authority promptly seized the opportunity to back out of the indirect talks it had agreed to -- why negotiate for Israeli concessions if Washington can force Israel to deliver them on a silver platter? "We want to hear from Mitchell," said Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, "that Israel has cancelled the decision to build housing units before we start the negotiations."
This has been the Palestinian Authority's strategy ever since Obama took office tilting against Israel. Last spring, the PA's Mahmoud Abbas told Jackson Diehl of The Washington Post that he had no intention of negotiating with Israel -- he was content to sit back and let Washington twist Netanyahu's arms. "The Americans are the leaders of the world," Abbas told Diehl. "They can use their weight with anyone around the world. . . . I will wait."
Candidate Barack Obama, addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 2008, pledged 'unwavering friendship with Israel.' Skeptics had their doubts.
Israel generally bends over backward to accommodate Washington, but there are some things no Israeli government can relinquish. One of them is the right of Jews to live in Jerusalem -- in all of Jerusalem, including the parts of the city conquered by Jordan in 1948 and kept judenrein until 1967. Israelis quarrel over many things, but the vast majority of them agree that Jerusalem must never again be divided. Americans agree as well. Indeed, as a matter of federal law -- the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 -- it is US policy that "Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected."
As a candidate for president in 2008, Barack Obama said that was his position too. Millions of pro-Israel American voters believed him, just as they believed his pledge of "unwavering friendship with Israel." The recent unpleasantness suggests it may be time for second thoughts.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).
-- ## --
Follow Jeff Jacoby on Twitter.
Join the Fans of Jeff Jacoby on Facebook.
Related Topics: Barack Obama, Israel
by Jeff Jacoby
The Boston Globe
March 21, 2010
http://www.jeffjacoby.com/7090/obamas-pointless-fight-with-israel
Print Send RSS ShareThis
LAST NOVEMBER the government of Israel agreed to a 10-month moratorium on new Jewish housing in the West Bank. The moratorium did not apply to schools, synagogues, and residential units already in the pipeline; nor did it apply to eastern Jerusalem, which is home to around 180,000 Israelis -- more than a third of Jerusalem's Jewish population. Yet even with those caveats it was an unprecedented concession, intended, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said, to "encourage resumption of peace talks with our Palestinian neighbors."
At the time, the Obama administration applauded Israel's announcement. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton hailed it as a "move forward." George Mitchell, the president's special envoy to the Middle East, praised it as "a positive development" that "could have substantial impact on the ground" and acknowledged that "it is more than any Israeli government has done before."
So when Israel's Interior Ministry recently announced its interim approval for the construction of 1,600 new apartments in Jerusalem's Ramat Shlomo neighborhood, it was not reneging on any commitment. If anyone was guilty of bad faith in the diplomatic crisis that ensued, it was the Obama administration, which had explicitly accepted the terms of Netanyahu's building freeze in November, yet was now going back on its word.
Orthodox Jews in the religious Jerusalem neighbourhood of Ramat Shlomo.
The Israeli government was guilty at most of poor timing, since the announcement came as Vice President Joe Biden was in the country and indirect talks with the Palestinians -- who have refused for more than a year to meet face to face with the Israelis -- were scheduled to begin. The gaffe should have been waved aside as soon as Netanyahu apologized for his government's awkward announcement, which he had not known about in advance. Instead the Obama administration went nuclear. Clinton publicly blasted Israel for what she called "an insult to the United States," and upbraided Netanyahu in a blistering 45-minute phone call, with talking points scripted by the president himself.
For good measure, the State Department spokesman then demanded that Israel demonstrate "through specific actions" its commitment to peace. Forgotten, apparently, was Netanyahu's unprecedented moratorium of last November, to say nothing of the innumerable Israeli goodwill gestures, concessions, prisoner releases, and peace offers to the Palestinians that preceded it -- all of them unrequited.
When President Obama was asked Wednesday evening whether US-Israeli relations are now in a crisis, he flatly answered: "No." But an atmosphere of harsh antagonism seems to be exactly what the administration's tantrum was meant to engender.
If the president's goal was to bring Israel and the Palestinians to the negotiating table and thereby revive the so-called "peace process," he couldn't have chosen a more counterproductive tactic. The Palestinian Authority promptly seized the opportunity to back out of the indirect talks it had agreed to -- why negotiate for Israeli concessions if Washington can force Israel to deliver them on a silver platter? "We want to hear from Mitchell," said Palestinian negotiator Saeb Erekat, "that Israel has cancelled the decision to build housing units before we start the negotiations."
This has been the Palestinian Authority's strategy ever since Obama took office tilting against Israel. Last spring, the PA's Mahmoud Abbas told Jackson Diehl of The Washington Post that he had no intention of negotiating with Israel -- he was content to sit back and let Washington twist Netanyahu's arms. "The Americans are the leaders of the world," Abbas told Diehl. "They can use their weight with anyone around the world. . . . I will wait."
Candidate Barack Obama, addressing the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in 2008, pledged 'unwavering friendship with Israel.' Skeptics had their doubts.
Israel generally bends over backward to accommodate Washington, but there are some things no Israeli government can relinquish. One of them is the right of Jews to live in Jerusalem -- in all of Jerusalem, including the parts of the city conquered by Jordan in 1948 and kept judenrein until 1967. Israelis quarrel over many things, but the vast majority of them agree that Jerusalem must never again be divided. Americans agree as well. Indeed, as a matter of federal law -- the Jerusalem Embassy Act of 1995 -- it is US policy that "Jerusalem should remain an undivided city in which the rights of every ethnic and religious group are protected."
As a candidate for president in 2008, Barack Obama said that was his position too. Millions of pro-Israel American voters believed him, just as they believed his pledge of "unwavering friendship with Israel." The recent unpleasantness suggests it may be time for second thoughts.
(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).
-- ## --
Follow Jeff Jacoby on Twitter.
Join the Fans of Jeff Jacoby on Facebook.
Related Topics: Barack Obama, Israel
Wednesday, April 7, 2010
Important Questions that American Jewry Needs to Ask
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Photo by: Associated Press
American Jewry’s deafening silence
05/04/2010 16:11
If Obama gets 20% of Jewish votes in 2012, it proves we can't defend ourselves.
When it came to protecting the right of the Libyan Ambassador to the UN living immediately next door to me in Englewood, my Democratic Congressman, Steve Rothman, found his voice, issuing a three page press release about a deal he had brokered with the State Department 27 years ago for the Libyans to bizarrely remain in a New Jersey suburb. But when I asked Rothman, who is Jewish, to comment on US President Barack Obama’s degrading treatment of Israel’s elected officials recently and the administration’s opposition to Jews building in all parts of Jerusalem, his chief of staff sent me an email that said the congressman was “away for the holidays so we won’t be able to provide you with a statement.”
Attitudes like these on the part of influential Jewish members of the American establishment explain why Obama has been allowed to get away with his treatment of Israel. Yes, it is we Jews who allow it, afraid to take a stand against a president who is rapidly emerging as the new Jimmy Carter.
Don’t think Obama isn’t listening.
When it came to endorsing a recent Congressional vote to label the Turks’ slaughter of over one million Armenians during the first World War a genocide, Obama quickly broke a campaign pledge, and a moral duty, to do just that and publicly distanced himself from the term genocide in order not to offend the Turkish government. And when it came to hosting the Dalai Lama at the White House, the president quickly bowed to Chinese bullying, not only refusing to greet the great humanitarian publicly but sending him out through the service entrance of the White House where he was photographed surrounded by giant bags of garbage. But when it comes to treating America’s most reliable ally like a pariah nation, Obama has no fear of the American Jewish community because he’s convinced there will be no price to pay. The Jews are too timid to react.
HOW SAD that we Jews have become so politically pathetic. Although there were grave suspicions about Obama’s position on Israel before the campaign, greatly compounded by his having sat through 20 years of vitriol toward Israel from his own pastor, American Jewry gave Obama the benefit of the doubt. Nearly eighty percent of American Jews voted for him against a proven friend of Israel in John McCain.
But as they say, “fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
Amid the Jewish propensity to blindly pull the Democrat lever in every vote without even thinking, if Obama gets anything more than twenty percent of the Jewish vote in 2012 it will be a manifestation of a community which simply doesn’t know how to stand up for itself and has contempt for its own interests.
And spare me the lectures on dual loyalty. If there is one thing the American people have learned it’s that the Israeli people are their canaries in the coalmine. Attacks that Israelis experience first just presage what Americans will later face.
Why? Because the Islamic nations hate Israel for the same reason they hate America. Israel is a bastion of freedom in a region of tyranny. The mullahs are religious, the Arab dictators mostly secular. But what they share in common is an absolute desire to rule absolutely. They hate Israel and America for its freedoms. They know that elections will knock them out of power and, like Saddam Hussein, they would face trial for crimes against humanity.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hates his own people even more than he hates Israel, brutalizing and slaughtering them in the streets whenever they stand up for themselves. The last thing the House of Saud wants is democracy, preferring to plunder their country’s oil wealth and concentrate it in the hands of princes of the blood, all of whom live like kings.The same hatred of liberty is harbored by all the other Arab potentates who have oppressed their people for decades, from Mubarak who has been in power for three decades, to Gaddafi and the Assads.
RATHER THAN pressuring Jews not to build condos in Jerusalem, Obama ought to pressure the Arabs to liberalize and democratize. He ought to use his considerable eloquence to state the obvious truth.That until such time as the Arabs allow their citizens to be free, there will never be peace in the Middle East.
Israel is the solution rather than the problem. The more Arab countries emulate its market economy and liberal democracy, the more our oppressed Islamic brothers and sisters will prosper. They will not need scapegoats, like Jews, to vent their understandable frustration at their wretched, impoverished lives, all brought about by clerics and dictators whose steal their money and their freedoms.
According to many estimates, Muammar Gaddafi is the richest man in the world, with a net worth of over $70 billion. That a thief and a murderer of that magnitude is allowed to own a tax-free mansion next door to me where we, honest and hard-working Americans, pay for his police protection and trash removal, is a travesty of truth and justice.
When American Jews stand up to the lie that Israeli intransigence is the reason for conflict in the Middle East, they end up helping their Arab brethren as well. Because the last thing the five hundred million Arabs who live under state censorship and political oppression need is their rulers and clerics finding a convenient scapegoat upon whom to place the blame for their people’s suffering.
And every time Obama falsely puts the blame on Israel for the region’s tensions, he puts another nail in the coffin of future Mideast freedom and Arab democracy and liberty.
Photo by: Associated Press
American Jewry’s deafening silence
05/04/2010 16:11
If Obama gets 20% of Jewish votes in 2012, it proves we can't defend ourselves.
When it came to protecting the right of the Libyan Ambassador to the UN living immediately next door to me in Englewood, my Democratic Congressman, Steve Rothman, found his voice, issuing a three page press release about a deal he had brokered with the State Department 27 years ago for the Libyans to bizarrely remain in a New Jersey suburb. But when I asked Rothman, who is Jewish, to comment on US President Barack Obama’s degrading treatment of Israel’s elected officials recently and the administration’s opposition to Jews building in all parts of Jerusalem, his chief of staff sent me an email that said the congressman was “away for the holidays so we won’t be able to provide you with a statement.”
Attitudes like these on the part of influential Jewish members of the American establishment explain why Obama has been allowed to get away with his treatment of Israel. Yes, it is we Jews who allow it, afraid to take a stand against a president who is rapidly emerging as the new Jimmy Carter.
Don’t think Obama isn’t listening.
When it came to endorsing a recent Congressional vote to label the Turks’ slaughter of over one million Armenians during the first World War a genocide, Obama quickly broke a campaign pledge, and a moral duty, to do just that and publicly distanced himself from the term genocide in order not to offend the Turkish government. And when it came to hosting the Dalai Lama at the White House, the president quickly bowed to Chinese bullying, not only refusing to greet the great humanitarian publicly but sending him out through the service entrance of the White House where he was photographed surrounded by giant bags of garbage. But when it comes to treating America’s most reliable ally like a pariah nation, Obama has no fear of the American Jewish community because he’s convinced there will be no price to pay. The Jews are too timid to react.
HOW SAD that we Jews have become so politically pathetic. Although there were grave suspicions about Obama’s position on Israel before the campaign, greatly compounded by his having sat through 20 years of vitriol toward Israel from his own pastor, American Jewry gave Obama the benefit of the doubt. Nearly eighty percent of American Jews voted for him against a proven friend of Israel in John McCain.
But as they say, “fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.”
Amid the Jewish propensity to blindly pull the Democrat lever in every vote without even thinking, if Obama gets anything more than twenty percent of the Jewish vote in 2012 it will be a manifestation of a community which simply doesn’t know how to stand up for itself and has contempt for its own interests.
And spare me the lectures on dual loyalty. If there is one thing the American people have learned it’s that the Israeli people are their canaries in the coalmine. Attacks that Israelis experience first just presage what Americans will later face.
Why? Because the Islamic nations hate Israel for the same reason they hate America. Israel is a bastion of freedom in a region of tyranny. The mullahs are religious, the Arab dictators mostly secular. But what they share in common is an absolute desire to rule absolutely. They hate Israel and America for its freedoms. They know that elections will knock them out of power and, like Saddam Hussein, they would face trial for crimes against humanity.
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad hates his own people even more than he hates Israel, brutalizing and slaughtering them in the streets whenever they stand up for themselves. The last thing the House of Saud wants is democracy, preferring to plunder their country’s oil wealth and concentrate it in the hands of princes of the blood, all of whom live like kings.The same hatred of liberty is harbored by all the other Arab potentates who have oppressed their people for decades, from Mubarak who has been in power for three decades, to Gaddafi and the Assads.
RATHER THAN pressuring Jews not to build condos in Jerusalem, Obama ought to pressure the Arabs to liberalize and democratize. He ought to use his considerable eloquence to state the obvious truth.That until such time as the Arabs allow their citizens to be free, there will never be peace in the Middle East.
Israel is the solution rather than the problem. The more Arab countries emulate its market economy and liberal democracy, the more our oppressed Islamic brothers and sisters will prosper. They will not need scapegoats, like Jews, to vent their understandable frustration at their wretched, impoverished lives, all brought about by clerics and dictators whose steal their money and their freedoms.
According to many estimates, Muammar Gaddafi is the richest man in the world, with a net worth of over $70 billion. That a thief and a murderer of that magnitude is allowed to own a tax-free mansion next door to me where we, honest and hard-working Americans, pay for his police protection and trash removal, is a travesty of truth and justice.
When American Jews stand up to the lie that Israeli intransigence is the reason for conflict in the Middle East, they end up helping their Arab brethren as well. Because the last thing the five hundred million Arabs who live under state censorship and political oppression need is their rulers and clerics finding a convenient scapegoat upon whom to place the blame for their people’s suffering.
And every time Obama falsely puts the blame on Israel for the region’s tensions, he puts another nail in the coffin of future Mideast freedom and Arab democracy and liberty.
How Some Things Never Change
THIS WAS WRITTEN IN 1968 42 years ago - Astonishing!
You probably don't remember the name Eric Hoffer.
He was a longshoreman who turned into a philosopher, wrote columns for newspapers and some books.
He was a non-Jewish American social philosopher.
He was born in 1902 and died in 1983, after writing nine books and winning the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
His first book, The True Believer, published in 1951, was widely recognized as a classic.
Eric Hoffer was one of the most influential American philosophers and free thinkers of the 20th Century. His books are still widely read and quoted today. Acclaimed for his thoughts on mass movements and fanaticism, Hoffer was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1983. Hopewell Publications awards the best in independent publishing across a wide range of categories, singling out the most thought provoking titles in books and short prose, on a yearly basis in honor of Eric Hoffer.
Here is one of his columns from 1968 -- 42 years ago! Some things never change!
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
ISRAEL 'S PECULIAR POSITION...by Eric Hoffer –
Los Angeles Times May 26,1968.
The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.
Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it.
Turkey threw out a million Greeks and Algeria a million Frenchman.
Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese and no one says a word about refugees.
But in the case of Israel , the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees.
Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single one.
Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis.
Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms.
But when Israel is victorious, it must sue for peace.
Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world.
Other nations, when they are defeated, survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed.
Had Nasser triumphed last June [1967], he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews.
No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on.
There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Blacks are executed in Rhodesia .
But, when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one demonstrated against him.
The Swedes, who were ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we did in Vietnam , did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews.
They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and ball bearings, and serviced his troops in Norway .
The Jews are alone in the world.
If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources.
Yet at this moment, Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally.
We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us.
And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer [1967] had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war, to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.
I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us.
Should Israel perish, the Holocaust will be upon us all.
You probably don't remember the name Eric Hoffer.
He was a longshoreman who turned into a philosopher, wrote columns for newspapers and some books.
He was a non-Jewish American social philosopher.
He was born in 1902 and died in 1983, after writing nine books and winning the Presidential Medal of Freedom.
His first book, The True Believer, published in 1951, was widely recognized as a classic.
Eric Hoffer was one of the most influential American philosophers and free thinkers of the 20th Century. His books are still widely read and quoted today. Acclaimed for his thoughts on mass movements and fanaticism, Hoffer was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in 1983. Hopewell Publications awards the best in independent publishing across a wide range of categories, singling out the most thought provoking titles in books and short prose, on a yearly basis in honor of Eric Hoffer.
Here is one of his columns from 1968 -- 42 years ago! Some things never change!
~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~~~
ISRAEL 'S PECULIAR POSITION...by Eric Hoffer –
Los Angeles Times May 26,1968.
The Jews are a peculiar people: things permitted to other nations are forbidden to the Jews.
Other nations drive out thousands, even millions of people and there is no refugee problem. Russia did it, Poland and Czechoslovakia did it.
Turkey threw out a million Greeks and Algeria a million Frenchman.
Indonesia threw out heaven knows how many Chinese and no one says a word about refugees.
But in the case of Israel , the displaced Arabs have become eternal refugees.
Everyone insists that Israel must take back every single one.
Arnold Toynbee calls the displacement of the Arabs an atrocity greater than any committed by the Nazis.
Other nations when victorious on the battlefield dictate peace terms.
But when Israel is victorious, it must sue for peace.
Everyone expects the Jews to be the only real Christians in this world.
Other nations, when they are defeated, survive and recover but should Israel be defeated it would be destroyed.
Had Nasser triumphed last June [1967], he would have wiped Israel off the map, and no one would have lifted a finger to save the Jews.
No commitment to the Jews by any government, including our own, is worth the paper it is written on.
There is a cry of outrage all over the world when people die in Vietnam or when two Blacks are executed in Rhodesia .
But, when Hitler slaughtered Jews no one demonstrated against him.
The Swedes, who were ready to break off diplomatic relations with America because of what we did in Vietnam , did not let out a peep when Hitler was slaughtering Jews.
They sent Hitler choice iron ore, and ball bearings, and serviced his troops in Norway .
The Jews are alone in the world.
If Israel survives, it will be solely because of Jewish efforts. And Jewish resources.
Yet at this moment, Israel is our only reliable and unconditional ally.
We can rely more on Israel than Israel can rely on us.
And one has only to imagine what would have happened last summer [1967] had the Arabs and their Russian backers won the war, to realize how vital the survival of Israel is to America and the West in general.
I have a premonition that will not leave me; as it goes with Israel so will it go with all of us.
Should Israel perish, the Holocaust will be upon us all.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)