Herzog’s four pledges for his first 100 days as prime minister are unworkable

Herzog’s four pledges for his first 100 days as prime minister are unworkable

WHEN YOU SEE A SWORD COMING:Three existential threats facing America.

• Joel C. Rosenberg
• Address to the National Religious Broadcasters Convention
• Nashville, Tennessee
• February 26, 2015

Reblogged from http://www.joelrosenberg.com/  


My text tonight is Ezekiel chapter 33, verses one through nine. It is a famous passage — one that you all know — about the role of the “Watchman on the Wall.” I believe it is deeply relevant to our times.

33 And the word of the Lord came to me, saying, ² “Son of man, speak to the sons of your people and say to them, ‘If I bring a sword upon a land, and the people of the land take one man from among them and make him their watchman, ³ and he sees the sword coming upon the land and blows on the trumpet and warns the people, ⁴ then he who hears the sound of the trumpet and does not take warning, and a sword comes and takes him away, his blood will be on his own head. ⁵ He heard the sound of the trumpet but did not take warning; his blood will be on himself. But had he taken warning, he would have delivered his life. ⁶ But if the watchman sees the sword coming and does not blow the trumpet and the people are not warned, and a sword comes and takes a person from them, he is taken away in his iniquity; but his blood I will require from the watchman’s hand.’

⁷ “Now as for you, son of man, I have appointed you a watchman for the house of Israel; so you will hear a message from My mouth and give them warning from Me. ⁸ When I say to the wicked, ‘O wicked man, you will surely die,’ and you do not speak to warn the wicked from his way, that wicked man shall die in his iniquity, but his blood I will require from your hand. ⁹ But if you on your part warn a wicked man to turn from his way and he does not turn from his way, he will die in his iniquity, but you have delivered your life.

More than 2,500 years ago, the Lord spoke these words to the Hebrew prophet Ezekiel.

• A man of God
• Born in Israel
• Exiled and living in Iraq
• Amidst grave dangers rising

What was Ezekiel commanded to do? The text is clear.

• Listen to God
• Watch for threats
• Warn the people, come what may

This was a divine calling – an enormous responsibility. And God was clear. Some would listen to Ezekiel’s warnings. Some would not. Ezekiel was not going to be held responsible for the decision others made to obey the Lord or not. He would be held responsible for obeying the Lord, teaching people the Word of God and warning the people when God told him to speak. Fortunately, Ezekiel was faithful to the task.

As followers of Jesus Christ — and as pastors and ministry leaders and religious broadcasters — each of you are, in our modern times, also watchmen on the walls. In many ways, you have the same calling. The same responsibility.

• To listen to the Word of God, found in the Bible
• To speak the Word of God — to tell people the bad news and the good news according to the Scriptures
• To warn people of threats that are rising
• To speak the truth in love, come what may

God warned Ezekiel — as He warns us today — that if He speaks and we don’t share His Word with others, we will be held to account. What’s more, if we see threats rising, and we do not warn people, we will be held to account.
Tonight, as I look out America, I see three existential threats.

• Threat #1 — What if America is not simply in a season of decline but heading towards collapse, towards implosion?
• Threat #2 — What if America is not simply at rising risk of attack by Radical Islam but heading towards the risk of annihilation by Apocalyptic Islam?
• Threat #3 — What if America is not simply entering a season of strained relations with Israel but heading towards total abandonment of the Jewish State?

Let’s take those one by one.
IMPLOSION
Threat #1 — What if America is not simply in a season of decline but heading towards collapse, towards implosion?

In 2012, I wrote a non-fiction book called, Implosion: Can America Recover From Her Economic & Spiritual Challenges in Time? I commend it to your attention because every passing day I believe the analysis is proving to be true and its message is becoming more urgent. The nation – and the Church – must know how much danger we are in. If we are silent, or if we soften it around the edges, we will be held to account before the Lord.

In the State of the Union address in January, the President covered a range of issues and challenges that we face, but this was his central case. “No challenge — no challenge — poses a greater threat to future generations than climate change.” (SOTU, January 20, 2015)
I respectfully disagree. There is a long list of reasons America faces implosion, but I can sum it up in one number: 58 million.

Since 1973, Americans have aborted 58 million babies. Think about that — 58 million. It is a staggering number. And if something doesn’t happen soon to change course, in less than two years we will hit 60 million.

If this happens, we as Americans will have murdered ten times more human beings than the number of Jews murdered by the Nazis.

We know the judgment of God that fell upon Nazi Germany. What do we think is going to happen to a nation that exterminates ten times more people than the Nazis?

The judgment of Almighty God is coming. There is no way out. The souls of 58 million babies are crying out for justice – and they will get it.But for this to happen we need to be pleading with God to have mercy on us. We need to be calling people to prayer, fasting and above all repentance.
I’m grateful for pastors like Ronnie Floyd, president of the Southern Baptist Convention, and Bible teachers like Anne Graham Lotz who are calling the Church to precisely this. May their tribe increase.

As watchmen, are you warning America of the coming implosion? Are you calling the Church and nation to prayer and fasting and repentance? Is there more that you can do? Let us be found faithful, for I believe our time is running out.

RADICAL ISLAM AND APOCALYPTIC ISLAM
Threat #2 — What if America is not simply at rising risk of attack by Radical Islam but heading towards the risk of annihilation by Apocalyptic Islam?

There are two core themes in my books, both novels and non-fiction:

1. To misunderstand the nature and threat of evil is to risk being blind-sided by it.
2. Evil, unchecked, is the prelude to genocide.

On December 7, 1941, we were blindsided by an evil we did not understand.
It happened again on September 11, 2001.

The 9/11 Commission Report stated that the attacks perpetrated by al Qaeda were “not a failure of intelligence but a failure of imagination.” Despite all of the data that was pouring in, our leaders in Washington simply never imagined that such an attack were possible.
Fourteen years later, we have a President who refuses to define “Radical Islam” as the source of the threat we face in the Middle East and North Africa.

• Running in 2008, said Iran was a small country and did not pose a serious threat to us
• January 2014: said ISIS was a “jayvee” squad, not a serious threat
• August 28, 2014: “We don’t have a strategy yet” to defeat ISIS.
• January 20, 2015: didn’t mention Islam or Islamism or AQI in his SOTU address

My friends, we cannot defeat an enemy we refuse to define.
The threat of Radical Islam is a very serious threat to us and our allies.
Consider the words of Jordan’s King Abdullah, not only a Muslim but a descendant of the Prophet Muhammad.

• we are in a “Third World War”
• “This is a war inside Islam. So we [Muslims] have to own up to it. We have to take the lead. And we have to start fighting back.”
• “This is a Muslim problem. We need to take ownership of this. We need to stand up and say what is right and what is wrong.” (interview on CBS 60 Minutes, December 5, 2014)

The King and his senior advisors get it. They aren’t Radicals, but Reformers. And they are actively engaged in fighting the Radicals militarily, diplomatically, politically, financially, and even theologically.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi also gets it. He, too, is a Muslim – and he, too, is engaging the fight on multiple fronts.
Consider his speech on January 1, 2015 at Al Azhar University in Cairo:

• “Is it possible that 1.6 billion people [Muslims] should want to kill the rest of the world’s inhabitants…so that they themselves may win? Impossible.”
• “We are in need of a religious revolution. You imams are responsible before Allah. The entire world is waiting for your next move.”

The President insists that we are not at war with Islam. Obviously. The vast majority of the world’s 1.5 billion Muslims are not a danger. But research shows that 7% to 10% of Muslims worldwide do support violent jihad. That’s upwards of 150 million people. If it were a single country — the Islamic Republic of Radicalstan — it would the world’s 9th largest, just ahead of Russia (146 million).
But the threat we face is not simply from Radical Islam. Indeed, it not even primarily from Radical Islam at this hour.

The most serious threat we face in the Middle East and North Africa is what I call “Apocalyptic Islam.”
This is a term each of needs to become familiar with and begin to teach others.
For the first time in all of human history, we have not just one but two nation states who rulers are driven not by political ideology — or even mere religious theology — but by apocalyptic End Times eschatology.

• The Islamic Republic of Iran today is ruled by an apocalyptic, genocidal death cult.
• So is the Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL.
• The former are Shia. The latter are Sunni.
• Both believe the End of days has come.
• Both believe their messiah – known as the “Mahdi” — is coming at any moment.
• Both are trying to hasten the coming of the Mahdi.
• Yet each has entirely different strategies.
• ISIS wants to build a caliphate.
• Iran wants to build The Bomb.
• ISIS is committing genocide now.
• Iran is preparing to commit genocide later.

In the near term, ISIS is more dangerous. Why? Because ISIS is on a jihadist rampage right now. Robbing. Killing. Destroying. Enslaving. Raping. Torturing. Beheading. As Americans, we dare not turn a blind eye to this threat. If we don’t defeat the jihadists over there, they are coming here. We must act, and act now.

That said, as Christians we have different responsibilities. The government’s job is to defeat and destroy our enemies. Our job as Christians is to love our enemies, and all those who are living under their reign of terror.

As followers of Jesus Christ, we must not be blind to the enormous suffering inside the Muslim world, nor deaf to their cries for help, nor dull to the tyranny we face. Christ commands us to love them, to serve them, to bless them, to tell them the good news that they may have life. We must act, and act now.

Longer term, Iran is the most dangerous, especially if the President approves this nuclear deal that is emerging. Why? Because the apocalyptic leaders of Iran are biding their time to build a nuclear arsenal capable of killing millions of people in a matter of minutes.

Far too few people in the West truly understand the nature and threat of Radical Islam, much less that of Apocalyptic Islam. Indeed, many dismiss these concerns all together. But it is empirical fact that a deep and widespread belief exists within the Islamic world that we are living in the End of Days.
According to a 2012 report by the Pew Research Center, “in most countries in the Middle East and North Africa, South Asia and Southeast Asia, more than half or more of Muslims believe they will love to see the return of the Mahdi.” That’s more than 750 million Muslims.

• Egypt — 40% of Muslims believe the return of the Mahdi is imminent.
• Jordan — 41%
• Palestinians — 46%
• Iraq — 72%

What’s more, the report found that an enormous number of Muslims believe that Jesus is coming back to earth (to serve under the Mahdi.)

• Jordan — 29% of Muslims believe Jesus is coming back to earth
• Egypt — 39%
• Palestinians — 46%
• Iraq — 64%

Apocalyptic Islamic eschatology is a photographic negative of Biblical eschatology. The leaders of Iran and ISIS believe the way to hasten the coming of the messiah to kill as many people as possible. The followers of Jesus Christ, on the other hand,  believe the way to hasten the coming of the messiah is to save as many people as possible. (Matthew 24:14)
Which brings me back to you — the watchmen on the wall.

• Are you warning the nation of the “coming sword” – the threat of both Radical Islam and Apocalyptic Islam — and explaining to people their similarities and their differences?
• Are you urging the Church to fulfill the Great Commission by preaching the gospel and making disciples of all nations, including Muslim nations?

Let us not simply tell the bad news. Let us tell the good news. And there is much good news. Since 1979, more Muslims have come to faith on Christ and renounced Islam than in the last 14 centuries of Islam combined.

So now is not the time to cower in fear. Now is the time to proclaim the Gospel of Jesus Christ in the power of the Holy Spirit — with courage and conviction — because “faith comes by hearing and hearing by the Word of Christ.”

ISRAEL
Which brings me finally to Threat #3 — What if America is not simply entering a season of strained relations with Israel, but we are heading towards total American abandonment of the Jewish State?

• Genesis 12:1-3 — God says He will bless those who bless Israel and the Jewish people, and curse those who curse them.
• Joel 3:2 — God warns the nations that He will judge all who divide the Land of Israel.
• Ezekiel 38-39 — God warns that a group of nations will attack Israel in the “last days” but no nation will come to Israel’s defense.
• Revelation 16 — God warns that all nations in the End of Days will attack Israel.

The Bible teaches us that all nations will turn against Israel in the last days — and all nations will face judgment for it — but woe into us if it happens on our watch.
Have we come to that fateful moment? It is not yet clear. Still, we are watching the President:

• negotiate an incredibly dangerous deal with Iran
• refuse to share the details of this detail with Israel, America’s most faithful and trusted ally in the region
• refuse to meet with the Israeli Prime Minister when he came to address a Joint Session of Congress on matters of existential importance to both of our nations.
• send the VP and Secretary of State out of country to avoid seeing the Prime Minister
• send his political strategists and operatives to defeat the Prime Minister and his party in Israel’s elections (March 17^th)

This is the most dangerous moment in the history of the U.S.-Israel relationship.
What do the next two years hold?

I’m not sure. But this much I know: on top of all America’s national challenges and sins, we dare not also abandon or turn against Israel and the Jewish people. If we do, we will seal our fate with God.
Which brings me back to you — the watchmen on the walls.

Are you warning the nation and the Church of the dangerous road the President has us on vis-à-vis Israel?
Are you mobilizing Christians to love and bless and pray for and stand with Israel and the Jewish people in this critical hour?

CONCLUSION

I am afraid I cannot tell you whether God will grant America a Third Great Awakening and/or raise up a King like Josiah (see 2 Chronicles 34-35) and thus forestall the coming judgment.
I cannot tell you whether the American government will do its job to protect us and our allies from Radical and Apocalyptic Islam before it’s too late.

Or whether the Church will do her job in fulfilling the Great Commission and standing with our persecuted brothers and sisters in the epicenter.

Or whether America and the Church will stand with Israel and bless her and the Jewish people.
All I can tell you is that you and I have been called to be watchmen on the walls.
Our job is to:

• Listen to and study and know the Word of God
• Teach the Word of God
• Watch for threats
• Warn the people, come what may

We are not going to be held responsible if people do not listen to us or to the Word of God. We will be held to account if we fail to speak and act when the Lord commands us to do so.
Much is hanging in the balance. May you and I be found faithful to the task.

Israel’s next 22 months - Caroline Glick

Reblogged from http://carolineglick.com/israels-next-22-months/

Friday, March 13th, 2015

The next 22 months until President Barack Obama leaves office promise to be the most challenging period in the history of US-Israel relations.

Now unfettered by electoral concerns, over the past week Obama exposed his ill-intentions toward Israel in two different ways.

First, the Justice Department leaked its intention to indict Democratic Sen. Robert Menendez on corruption charges. Menendez is the ranking Democratic member, and the former chairman, of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He is also the most outspoken Democratic critic of Obama’s policy of appeasing the Iranian regime.

As former US federal prosecutor Andrew McCarthy wrote this week at PJMedia, “It is perfectly reasonable to believe that Menendez may be guilty of corruption offenses and that his political opposition on Iran is factoring into the administration’s decision to charge him. Put it another way, if Menendez were running interference for Obama on the Iran deal, rather than trying to scupper it, I believe he would not be charged.”

The Menendez prosecution tells us that Obama wishes to leave office after having vastly
diminished support for Israel among Democrats. And he will not hesitate to use strong-arm tactics against his fellow Democrats to achieve his goal.

We already experienced Obama’s efforts in this sphere in the lead-up to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s speech before the joint houses of Congress on March 3 with his campaign to pressure Democratic lawmakers to boycott Netanyahu’s address.

Now, with his move against Menendez, Obama made clear that support for Israel – even in the form of opposition to the nuclear armament of Iran – will be personally and politically costly for Democrats.

The long-term implications of Obama’s moves to transform US support for Israel into a partisan issue cannot by wished away. It is possible that his successor as the head of the Democratic Party will hold a more sympathetic view of Israel. But it is also possible that the architecture of Democratic fund-raising and grassroots support that Obama has been building for the past six years will survive his presidency and that as a consequence, Democrats will have incentives to oppose Israel.

The reason Obama is so keen to transform Israel into a partisan issue was made clear by the second move he made last week.

Last Thursday, US National Security Adviser Susan Rice announced that the NSC’s Middle East Coordinator Phil Gordon was stepping down and being replaced by serial Israel-basher Robert Malley.

Malley, who served as an NSC junior staffer during the Clinton administration, rose to prominence in late 2000 when, following the failed Camp David peace summit in July 2000 and the outbreak of the Palestinian terror war, Malley co-authored an op-ed in The New York Times blaming Israel and then-prime minister Ehud Barak for the failure of the negotiations.

What was most remarkable at the time about Malley’s positions was that they completely contradicted Bill Clinton’s expressed views. Clinton placed the blame for the failure of the talks squarely on then-Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat’s shoulders.

Not only did Arafat reject Barak’s unprecedented offer of Palestinian statehood and sovereignty over all of Gaza, most of Judea and Samaria and parts of Jerusalem including the Temple Mount, he refused to make a counter-offer. And then two months later, he opened the Palestinian terror war.

 As Jonathan Tobin explained in Commentary this week, through his writings and public statements, Malley has legitimized Palestinian rejection of Israel’s right to exist. Malley thinks it is perfectly reasonable that the Palestinians refuse to concede their demand for free immigration of millions of foreign Arabs to the Jewish state in the framework of their concocted “right of return,” even though the clear goal of that demand is to destroy Israel. As Tobin noted, Malley believes that Palestinian terrorism against Israel is “understandable if not necessarily commendable.”

During Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign, then-senator Obama listed Malley as a member of his foreign policy team. When pro-Israel groups criticized his appointment, Obama fired Malley.

But after his 2012 reelection, no longer fearing the ramifications of embracing an openly anti-Israel adviser, one who had documented contacts with Hamas terrorists and has expressed support for recognizing the terror group, Obama appointed Malley to serve as his senior adviser for Iraq-Iran-Syria and the Gulf states. Still facing the 2014 congressional elections, Obama pledged that Malley would have no involvement in issues related to Israel and the Palestinians. But then last week, he appointed him to direct the NSC’s policy in relation to the entire Middle East, including Israel.

The deeper significance of Malley’s appointment is that it demonstrates that Obama’s goal in his remaining time in office is to realign US Middle East policy away from Israel. With his Middle East policy led by a man who thinks the Palestinian goal of destroying Israel is legitimate, Obama can be expected to expand his practice of placing all the blame for the absence of peace between Israel and the Palestinians solely on Israel’s shoulders.

Malley’s appointment indicates that there is nothing Israel can do to stem the tsunami of American pressure it is about to suffer. Electing a left-wing government to replace Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu will make no difference.

Just as Malley was willing to blame Barak – a leader who went to Camp David as the head of a minority coalition, whose positions on territorial withdrawals were rejected by a wide majority of Israelis – for the absence of peace, so we can assume that he, and his boss, will blame Israel for the absence of peace over the next 22 months, regardless of who stands at the head of the next government.

In this vein we can expect the administration to expand the anti-Israel positions it has already taken.

The US position paper regarding Israeli-Palestinian negotiation that was leaked this past week to Yediot Aharonot made clear the direction Obama wishes to go. That document called for Israel to withdraw to the indefensible 1949 armistice lines, with minor revisions.

In the coming 22 months we can expect the US to use more and more coercive measures to force Israel to capitulate to its position.
Continue reading 

Russia: The Age of Mythology with Nuclear Rockets

 Reblogged from  www.frontpagemag.com

March 6, 2015 by Oleg Atbashian 29 Comments

 
The ballistic missile with Obama’s name on it, paraded in the streets of Moscow this Monday, was only an imitation – but the sentiment was genuine.
Looking like a gigantic allegorical suppository for the American president, the green twelve-foot rocket emblazoned with the hammer and sickle over a red star brought up Cold War memories of real intercontinental missiles the Soviet government would parade in Red Square as a vague threat to its enemies. There was no vagueness this time: in large print letters, the message on the rocket said, “To be delivered to Obama in person.”

The occasion was the Day of the Defenders of the Motherland – a big annual celebration of the creation of the Red Army in 1918 by Leon Trotsky. To be sure, Trotsky’s name had not been attached to this holiday ever since his removal from power and assassination by Stalin. Additionally, the country has since changed its name, borders, ideology, the system of government, and renamed the very holiday in question. Still, the holiday spirit runs strong, along with patriotic rallies, propaganda posters, and nationally televised bombastic military-themed concerts puffed up by a full roster of Kremlin-approved celebrities.

It’s also dubbed Men’s Day, as all Russian men and boys receive greetings and gifts from women and girls – a rather manipulative hetero-normative reminder that all male citizens belong in the army. In a way, this mirrors Women’s Day on March 8th – another originally communist holiday that comes twelve days later, when women and girls receive greetings and gifts from men and boys, as men volunteer to help around the house and do women’s work in the kitchen – which may also be seen as a hetero-normative reminder of a woman’s place on all other days of the year.

This year Ukraine officially canceled the celebration of Russia’s military holiday, belatedly joining other ex-Soviet republics that had suffered the wrath of the Red Army. In contrast, Vladimir Putin’s government has boosted the celebration even further, making February 23rd an official day off and using it to crank up the already excessive Russian patriotism.
With full support of the government-controlled media, national chauvinism is now spilling over the state borders, as gangs of armed “patriots” flock to eastern Ukraine, eager to show the uppity ukrops their place in Pax Russiana. Jingoism dominates Russia’s online forums and social media, as well as the streets and city squares, with rallies that support Putin, military adventurism, and Pax Russiana, while at the same time trashing everything non-Russian, especially America and Gayrope (a new Russian slur deriving from “gay” + “Europe.”) The stunt with the Obama-targeted missile is merely a small piece in the world’s largest jigsaw puzzle called Russia.

According to the Levada Center, a Moscow-based independent polling organization, America is seen negatively today by 74% of the Russian population (60% also have a negative view of Europe), and 69% believe the United States is a hostile nation. At the same time, after the break-up of the USSR in the early 1990s, only 10% of Russians viewed the U.S. negatively. What happened?

The Levada Center has registered four waves of anti-American and anti-Western sentiment in Russia – in 1999 (the war in Serbia), in 2003 (the war in Iraq), in 2008 (the war in Georgia), and in 2014 (the war in Ukraine), with today’s wave being the strongest in the last 20 years. Sociologists also believe that Russia’s public opinion is shaped largely by the government-run media, with more than one half of the respondents admitting they couldn’t form opinions independently.

It would be fair to say that every such wave of anti-Americanism in Russia (and to some extent around the world) has been orchestrated and paid for by the Kremlin’s powerful propaganda machine, which deploys two parallel narratives – one for the foreigners and one for domestic use. The domestic narrative is always a variation of the same formula:

“Once again, the Motherland is under attack from American imperialism. The West has always hated Russia. Out of sheer hatred they want to humiliate us and push Russia out of its traditional spheres of influence. To survive, our nation must unite around a strong leader and his party.”

The leader is, of course, Vladimir Putin; the party is United Russia.
Continue reading 

End Times Teaching - Arnold Fruchtenbaum

Jean-Claude Juncker Calls for EU Army

Reblogged from www.reuters.com via Bible Prophecy Blog

March 11, 2015

(REUTERS)—The European Union needs its own army to face up to Russia and other threats as well as restore the bloc's foreign policy standing around the world, EU Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker told a German newspaper on Sunday.
Arguing that NATO was not enough because not all members of the transatlantic defense alliance are in the EU, Juncker said a common EU army would also send important signals to the world.

"A joint EU army would show the world that there would never again be a war between EU countries," Juncker told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper. "Such an army would also help us to form common foreign and security policies and allow Europe to take on responsibility in the world."
Juncker said a common EU army could serve as a deterrent and would have been useful during the Ukraine crisis.

"With its own army, Europe could react more credibly to the threat to peace in a member state or in a neighboring state.
"One wouldn't have a European army to deploy it immediately. But a common European army would convey a clear message to Russia that we are serious about defending our European values."

The 28-nation EU already has battle groups that are manned on a rotational basis and meant to be available as a rapid reaction force. But they have never been used in a crisis.
EU leaders have said they want to boost the common security policy by improving rapid response capabilities.

But Britain, along with France one of the two main military powers in the bloc, has been wary of giving a bigger military role to the EU, fearing it could undermine NATO.
German Defence Minister Ursula von der Leyen welcomed Juncker's proposal: "Our future as Europeans will at some point be with a European army," she told German radio. 

(Reporting by Erik Kirschbaum; additional reporting by Adrian Croft in Brussels; editing by Clelia Oziel)

Related Links

---

• Merkel backs calls for EU army • Anadolu Agency
• Putin's Army Built to Reassert Russian Influence in a Modern World • U.S. News & World Report
• Arab League Calls to Create a 'Unified Arab Military Force' • Arutz Sheva
• Jean-Claude Juncker calls for EU army • The Guardian
• More union in European defence • EU Observer
• After Russia Sends Tanks, Obama Sends Non-Lethal Humvees and Drones To Ukraine • Breitbart

Americans Battle the Arab-Israeli Conflict

By Daniel Pipes Middle East Quarterly Spring 2015 http://www.danielpipes.org/15621/americans-arab-israel-conflict Share: Be the first of your friends to like this. When, in the midst of the 2014 Hamas-Israel war, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration briefly banned American carriers from flying to Israel, Sen. Ted Cruz (Republican of Texas) accused Barack Obama of using a federal regulatory agency "to launch an economic boycott on Israel, in order to try to force our ally to comply with his foreign-policy demands." In so doing, Cruz made an accusation no Israeli leader would dare express. Senator Ted Cruz (Left, Republican of Texas) met with Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu right after taking office in January 2013. This is hardly unique. Over the years, other American political figures both Republican (Dan Burton, Jesse Helms, Condoleezza Rice, Arlen Specter) and Democrat (Charles Schumer), have adopted tougher, and sometimes more Zionist stances than the Israeli government. This pattern in turn points to a larger phenomenon: The Arab-Israeli conflict tends to generate more intense partisanship among Americans than among Middle Easterners. The latter may die from the conflict but the former experience it with greater passion. I shall document and explain this counterintuitive pattern, then draw a conclusion from it. More Anti-Israel than the Arabs Americans who hate Israel can be more volubly anti-Zionist than Arabs. At a memorable Washington dinner party in November 1984, hosted by the Iraqi embassy for the visiting foreign minister, Tariq Aziz, two tipsy American press grandees admonished and even insulted this emissary of Saddam Hussein for being insufficiently anti-Israel. Helen Thomas of United Press International complained that Iraq had not retaliated against Israel after the destruction of the Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981. When Aziz tried brushing off her criticism, she scornfully accused the Iraqi regime of cowardice: "Just yellow, I guess." Later the same evening, Rowland Evans of the syndicated Evans & Novak column, interrupted Aziz when he called the Iran-Iraq war the most important issue in the Middle East, shouting, "You must tell Secretary of State Shultz that the Arab-Israeli conflict is your main concern!" The late Barry Rubin, who was present, subsequently commented: "Unaccustomed to being attacked for excessive softness on Israel, Aziz looked astonished." Helen Thomas was long a fixture at presidential press conferences. Similarly, in 1981, James E. Akins, a former U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia described as "more pro-Arab than the Arab officials," chided Sheik Zaki Yamani, the Saudi oil minister, for rejecting the idea of linking Saudi oil production to U.S. policy toward Israel. In 1993, Edward Said of Columbia University castigated Palestine Liberation Organization leader Yasir Arafat for entering into the Oslo negotiating process. Meanwhile, Anthony B. Tirado Chase, an analyst of Said's writings, found that "Said's rejectionism speaks for few in the West Bank or Gaza." In 2003, George Galloway, the British parliamentarian, incited Palestinians against Israel: The Arabs are a great people. Islam is a great religion. But it has to, and they have to, stand up. … I asked somebody once, when [Ariel] Sharon was massacring the Palestinians in Jenin, why the huge demonstrations in the Arab countries didn't continue? Why did they go away? They answered because a student was killed in Alexandria. I am very sorry for the student and his family, but the Palestinians are losing their children every day, yet it doesn't stop them from coming out the next day. So it can be done. Hizbullah drove the enemy running from their country. Fares Uday, a 14-year-old boy, stood in front of an Israeli tank and attacked it with his hands. And when they killed him, his brother and his neighbors came in his place. In 2009, after a lecture tour of American universities, the Palestinian journalist Khaled Abu Toameh observed that there is more sympathy for Hamas there than there is in Ramallah. … Listening to some students and professors on these campuses, for a moment I thought I was sitting opposite a Hamas spokesman or a would-be-suicide bomber. … What struck me more than anything else was the fact that many of the people I met on the campuses supported Hamas and believed that it had the right to "resist the occupation" even if that meant blowing up children and women on a bus in downtown Jerusalem. Khaled Abu Toameh, an Arab-Israeli journalist, was taken aback by the anti-Zionist passion on U.S. campuses. Even more ironically, Abu Toameh found that many of the Arabs and Muslims on American campuses "were much more understanding and even welcomed my 'even-handed analysis' of the Israeli-Arab conflict." Along the same lines, the historian Bernard Lewis notes that "Israelis traveling in the West often find it easier to establish a rapport with Arabs than with Arabophiles." Conversely, Lewis notes the viciousness of some Westerners residing in the Middle East: Time and time again, European and American Jews traveling in Arab countries have observed that, despite the torrent of broadcast and published anti-Semitism, the only face-to-face experience of anti-Semitic hostility that they suffered during their travels was from compatriots, many of whom feel free, in what they imagine to be the more congenial atmosphere of the Arab world, to make anti-Semitic … remarks that they would not make at home. One symptom of this: The recent Hamas-Israel war prompted anti-Israel hate demonstrations, some violent, on the streets of many Western cities, while – with the exception of territories under Israeli control – the Arab street remained largely calm. More Zionist than the Israelis Similarly, American supporters of Israel tend to stake out more ardently Zionist positions than do Israelis. In 1978, Richard Nixon complained that "the problem with the Israelis in Israel was not nearly as difficult as the Jewish community here." In 1990, Israeli journalist Yossi Melman was surprised to find a Jewish audience in Texas taking a harder line against the Palestinians than he did himself; he responded with alarm when one young man asserted, referring to a fracas with the Israeli police that left nineteen Palestinians dead, "I do not feel sorry for those Palestinians who were killed. The Israeli police should have shot a thousand of them," and no one in the audience took issue with him. In 2000, Said complained that Zionist groups in the United States have views "in some way more extreme than even those of the Israeli Likud." Also in 2000, when Israel's prime minister offered unprecedented concessions on Jerusalem, Malcolm Hoenlein, vice chairman of the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations, criticized his efforts "to take away or compromise Jewish sovereignty over the Temple Mount and turn it over to the jurisdiction of the United Nations or the Palestinian Authority." Later, he warned, "all of us will have to answer to our children and grandchildren when they ask us why we did not do more to stop the giving away of Har haBayit [the Temple Mount]." Polling by the American Jewish Committee regularly finds American Jews more skeptical than their Israeli counterparts on the question of the efficacy of diplomacy with the Arabs. At the same time, for an American to be pro-Israel means liking all Israelis; starting with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee and Christians United for Israel, pro-Israel organizations offer unconditional support to Israel. Many American Jews go further. With neither their own lives nor those of their children at risk in the Israel Defense Forces, they do not publicly disagree with Israeli government decisions. By contrast, ranking Israelis repeatedly demand that Washington pressure their own government into taking steps against its wishes. Most famously, in 2007 David Landau, editor of Ha'aretz newspaper, told then U.S. secretary of state Condoleezza Rice that Israel was a "failed state" and implored her to intervene on the grounds that Israel needs "to be raped." Explanations Three reasons account for American partisans adopting stronger positions than their Middle Eastern counterparts: Pure passion: Abu Toameh notes: "Many of the Palestinian Authority and Hamas officials … sound much more pragmatic than most of the anti-Israel, 'pro-Palestinian' folks on the campuses." That is because they have real-life decisions to make, with which they must live. Israelis and Arabs maintain a patchwork of relationships and daily life that softens the harshness of rhetoric. In contrast, pure passion tends to reign in the West. Most Israelis have contact with Arabs, something few American Zionists do. Similarly, a fair number of Egyptians, Jordanians, Lebanese, and other Arabs come into contact with Israelis. For Middle Easterners, the enemy is human; for Americans, the opponent consists of two-dimensional political adversaries. American anti-Zionists astonished Saddam Hussein's henchman Tariq Aziz. This even applies to so monstrous a dictatorship as Saddam Hussein's. As Barry Rubin commented about the experience of Tariq Aziz at dinner: "Perhaps it was easier to deal with the inner circles of Saddam's regime, where fear bred discipline, than with these wild, unpredictable Americans." Two examples: Pro-Israel and anti-Israel Americans never need to cooperate on joint water supplies. Ismail Haniya, the head of the Hamas terrorist organization dedicated to Israel's elimination, has three sisters who emigrated from Gaza to Israel, live as citizens there, and have children who served in the Israel Defense Forces. Solidarity: Israelis argue mostly with other Israelis and Arabs with Arabs; but in the United States, pro-Israelis argue with anti-Israelis. Israelis and Arabs in the Middle East feel free to disagree with their own side more than do their U.S. partisans. When a left-wing Israeli criticizes the Netanyahu government's policy, he disagrees with the Likud Party; when a left-wing American Jewish figure does the same, he attacks Israel. The former debates are within the framework of Israeli policymaking, the latter in the arena of American public opinion. Melman noted that "we Israelis have the luxury of expressing ourselves more frankly than many American Jews" and explained this by noting how "American Jews fear that their public criticism [of Israel] might be exploited by professional critics of Israel. Hence, most American Jews prefer to conceal their disagreements about Israel." Mattityahu Peled, a left-wing Israeli gadfly, similarly observed that the pressure on Jews who hold dissenting views in the United States "is far greater than the pressure on us in Israel. … probably we in Israel enjoy a larger degree of tolerance than you here in the Jewish community." Best-known policy issue: In the Middle East itself, other issues – civil wars in Syria and Iraq, the Saudi vs. Qatar vs. Iran rivalries, water problems – compete with the Arab-Israeli conflict for attention. But in the United States, the Arab-Israeli conflict is far better known than any other issue and thus dominates the discussion. As a result, the lines of debate are far more clearly etched: When the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) conquered Mosul in June 2014, no one knew what to do; but when Hamas launched rockets against Israel a month later, the facts and arguments were reassuringly familiar. Conclusion Arab-Israeli partisanship fits a broader pattern, in which distance turns greys into blacks and whites, increasing political passions. In the case of the Contra war in Nicaragua, the journalist Stephen Schwartz writes that, on the one side, "Sandinistas often commented to me that they were put off to realize that their Democrat supporters in Washington employed a bloodthirsty rhetoric that would never have been heard in the towns of Central America." When asked about this, a Sandinista explained: "We have to face death, and it makes us less willing to speak idly about it; but they enjoy talking about a death they will never risk or inflict on others ." During the Spanish Civil War, Leon Trotsky found the rhetoric in London more extreme than the reality in Barcelona. The same reluctance applied on the other side, Schwartz found. A Contra supporter explained: "Our families are split by this conflict, and we do not feel the aggravated sense of rage displayed by foreigners about the war here. In fighting we may have to kill, or be killed by, a relative with whom we grew up. It is not something that fills us with enthusiasm." In other wars where combatants live in close proximity to each other but their supporters do not, a similar pattern has emerged: Civil wars in Vietnam, Ireland, and Bosnia come immediately to mind. Commenting on the Spanish civil war, Trotsky observed that the rhetoric in London was far more extreme than the reality in Barcelona. In conclusion, this pattern runs contrary to the general assumption that the frenzied combatants in a war need cool-headed outsiders to help guide them to resolution and peace – an assumption that sometimes leads to the unfortunate decision to put ignoramuses in charge of diplomacy and policy. In fact, the locals may see the problem more lucidly and realistically than their foreign friends. It is time for foreigners to stop assuming they know how to achieve the region's salvation and instead to listen more to those directly involved. Mr. Pipes (DanielPipes.org, @DanielPipes) is president of the Middle East Forum. © 2014 by Daniel Pipes. All rights reserved. Related Topics:  Arab-Israeli debate in the U.S. This text may be reposted or forwarded so long as it is presented as an integral whole with complete and accurate information provided about its author, date, place of publication, and original URL.

Baby growing in Mommy´s womb - Life is a miracle

"Weeks after leaving office, Obama discovers a leak under his sink so he calls a plumber to fix it..."

Reblogged from conservativetribune.com 

The Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare, is a socialist scheme that does nothing more than funnel money away from the successful and into the hands of the not-so-successful.
While it might sound charitable at first glance, be very wary, for socialism in any form always produces the most horrific of results, as this example demonstrates:
Only weeks after leaving office on Jan. 20, 2017, former President Barack Obama discovers a leak under his sink, so he calls Troy the Plumber to come out and fix it.
Troy drives to Obama’s new house, which is located in a very exclusive, gated community near Chicago where all the residents have a net income of way more than $250,000 per year.
Troy arrives and takes his tools into the house. He is led to the guest bathroom that contains the leaky pipe under the sink. Troy assesses the problem and tells Obama that it’s an easy repair that will take less than 10 minutes. Obama asks Troy how much it will cost. Troy checks his rate chart and says, “$9,500.”

“What?! $9,500?!” Obama asks, stunned, “But you said it’s an easy repair. Michelle will whip me if I pay a plumber that much!”
Troy says, “Yes, but what I do is charge those who make more than $250,000 per year a much higher amount so I can fix the plumbing of poorer people for free. This has always been my philosophy. As a matter of fact, I lobbied the Democrat Congress, who passed this philosophy into law. Now all plumbers must do business this way. It’s known as the ‘Affordable Plumbing Act of 2014′. I’m surprised you haven’t heard of it.”

In spite of that, Obama tells Troy there’s no way he’s paying that much for a small plumbing repair, so Troy leaves. Obama spends the next hour flipping through the phone book calling for another plumber, but he finds that all other plumbing businesses in the area have gone out of business. Not wanting to pay Troy’s price, Obama does nothing and the leak goes un-repaired for several more days. A week later the leak is so bad Obama has had to put a bucket under the sink.
Michelle is not happy as she has Oprah and guests arriving the next morning. The bucket fills up quickly and has to be emptied every hour, and there’s a risk the room will flood, so Obama calls Troy and pleads with him to return.

Troy goes back to Obama’s house, looks at the leaky pipe, checks his new rate chart and says, “Let’s see, this will now cost you $21,000.”
Obama quickly fires back, “What? A few days ago you told me it would cost $9,500!”
Troy explains, “Well, because of the ‘Affordable Plumbing Act,’ a lot of wealthier people are learning how to maintain and take care of their own plumbing, so there are fewer payers in the plumbing exchanges. As a result, the price I have to charge wealthy people like you keeps rising. Not only that, but for some reason the demand for plumbing work by those who get it for free has skyrocketed! There’s a long waiting list of those who need repairs, but the amount we get doesn’t cover our costs, especially paperwork and record-keeping. This unfortunately has put a lot of my fellow plumbers out of business, they’re not being replaced, and nobody is going into the plumbing business because they know they can’t make any money at it. I’m hurting too, all thanks to greedy rich people like you who won’t pay their ‘fair share’. On the other hand, why didn’t you buy plumbing insurance last December? If you had bought plumbing insurance available under the ‘Affordable Plumbing Act,’ all this would have been covered by your policy.”

“You mean I wouldn’t have to pay anything to have you fix my plumbing problem?” asks Obama.
“Well, not exactly,” replies Troy. “You would have had to buy the insurance before the deadline, which has passed now. And, because you’re rich, you would have had to pay $34,000 in premiums, which would have given you a ‘silver’ plan, and then, since this would have been your first repair, you would have to pay up to the $21,000 deductible, and anything over that would have a $7,500 co-pay, and then there’s the mandatory maintenance program, which is covered up to 17.5%, so there are some costs involved. Nothing is for free.”

“WHAT?!” exclaims Obama. “Why so much for a puny sink leak?!”
With a bland look, Troy replies, “Well, paperwork, mostly, like I said. And the internal cost of the program itself. You don’t think a program of this complexity and scope can run itself, do you? Besides, there are millions of folks with lower incomes than you, even many in the ‘middle class’, who qualify for subsidies that people like you must support. That’s why they call it the ‘Affordable Plumbing Act’! Only people who don’t make much money can afford it. If you want affordable plumbing, you’ll have to give away most of what you have accumulated and cut your and Michelle’s income by about 90%. Then you can qualify to get your ‘Fair Share’ instead of giving it.”
“But who would pass a crazy act like the ‘Affordable Plumbing Act’?!” exclaims the exasperated Obama.

After a sigh, Troy replies, “Congress… because they didn’t read it.”
This anecdote, while amusing, is also extraordinarily truthful, in that Obamacare functions just like the fictional “Affordable Plumbing Act.”
It inflates the costs of health care, drives providers out of business and reduces the incentive for hard work — because why should one work hard when he or she can get healthcare (or plumbing) for absolutely free?

Socialism basically does to the country the same thing it did to it in Ayn Rand’s classic novel, “Atlas Shrugged” — it turns it upside down.
It also does nothing to fix the real problem, much like the “Affordable Plumbing Act” did nothing whatsoever to help poor Barry with that awful leak in the bathroom!

Congress Defies Obama. Warns Iran.

Reblogged from https://kingsjester.wordpress.com/

All debts contracted and engagements entered into, before the adoption of this Constitution, shall be as valid against the United States under this Constitution, as under the Confederation.

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States. The Constitution of the United States of America, Article VI

The preceding article gives the power to ratify treaties with other nations, to Congress.
As you know, President Barack Hussein Obama, has been ignoring Congress, in his zeal to broker a “Nuclear Arms Agreement” with the Radical Islamic Nation of Iran.
Yesterday, the Republican – led Congress made sure that both Obama and Iran knew that our government consists of 3 co-equal branches.
Fox News reports that

Forty-seven Republican senators warned Iran’s leaders on Monday that any nuclear deal needs congressional approval in order to last beyond President Obama’s term, in a stark letter aimed at re-asserting lawmakers’ role as talks near a key deadline. 

In an open letter to Iranian leaders, Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., and 46 other Republicans said they wanted to educate Iran about the U.S. Constitution. Namely, they pointed out that without congressional approval on a deal, all Tehran would be left with is a “mere executive agreement” between President Obama and Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. 

The next president could revoke such an executive agreement with the stroke of a pen,” they wrote, “and future Congresses could modify the terms of the agreement at any time.” 

They added: “We hope this letter enriches your knowledge of our constitutional system and promotes mutual understanding and clarity as nuclear negotiations progress.” 
Though the letter is addressed to leaders in Tehran, it seems as much aimed at delivering a message to Obama. 

Republicans and some Democrats want Congress to vote on any agreement, and are pushing a bill that would give Congress a say despite resistance from the White House. 
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., though, has agreed to ease off a short-lived effort to fast-track that legislation, amid some Democratic concerns. 

Notably, the Republican co-sponsor of that bill, Sen. Bob Corker, R-Tenn., did not sign the most recent open letter to Iran’s leaders. No Democrats signed the letter, either. 

White House spokesman Josh Earnest said Monday that a congressional vote is not what Obama envisions. 
“The fact is the president does not envision substantial sanctions relief for Iran right at the negotiating table,” Earnest said during the daily White House briefing. 

The nuclear pact negotiators are working on does not require congressional approval because it is not a treaty, which would require a two-thirds majority Senate vote to be ratified. However, as the 47 Republicans noted in their letter, approval from a congressional majority would give the deal the force of a “congressional-executive agreement.” 
The U.S. and other nations are seeking a pact that would let Western powers verify that Iran will not obtain a nuclear weapon. 

The next negotiations are scheduled for March 15, and wide gaps remain between the two sides. The deadline for an outline of a U.S.-Iranian deal is at the end of March. 
Iran has said its nuclear program is peaceful and is aimed at producing energy. 

There was no immediate Iranian government reaction to the letter or any discussion of it in Iranian media. 
Cotton is a freshman senator who serves on the Senate’s Armed Service and Intelligence committees.

The BBC reports that Obama said in response, that

I think it’s somewhat ironic to see some members of Congress wanting to make common cause with the hardliners in Iran. It’s an unusual coalition. 

In the “Irony” Department,

— In his book “The Audacity of Hope,” President Barack Obama praised the Constitution and the federalism it enshrines, including the “three coequal” branches of government and checks on power that “prevent tyranny by either the few or the many.”“The outlines of Madison’s constitutional architecture are so familiar that even schoolchildren can recite them: not only rule of law and representative government, not just a bill of rights, but also the separation of the national government into three coequal branches, a bicameral Congress, and a concept of federalism that preserved authority in state governments, all of it designed to diffuse power, check factions, balance interests, and prevent tyranny by either the few or the many,” Obama, who taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School, said in the 2006 book.

In just 9 short years, Obama has forgotten everything he ever knew about US Civics.
On purpose.
Until He Comes,
KJ