Archive for November, 2007

The “I’s” Reveal the Man

The Annapolis speeches of President Bush, PA Chairman Mahmoud Abbas, and Prime Minister Ehud Olmert were of roughly equal length. They reminded the present writer of the congratulatory toasts of President Bill Clinton, King Hussein, and Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin at the White House after the signing of the October 1994 Israel-Jordan peace treaty. The frequency of Mr. Rabin’s use of “I” was rather astonishing, compared to its relatively modest use by Clinton and King Hussein.

Regarding the speeches at Annapolis: Mr. Bush used the first person singular (“I”, “me”, and “my”) no less than 7 times. Mr. Abbas used the first person singular no less than 20 times. Mr. Olmert used the first person singular no less than 39 times! » Continue reading “The “I’s” Reveal the Man”

Comments off

To Win: Call the Enemy by His Right Name

Overwhelmed by the ineptitude, cowardice, and even treachery of various Israeli governments, many Jews here and abroad despair of Israel's future. Hardly a week passes when one or more of our brothers and sisters are not murdered by Arabs, while a devious government lies about peace and is preoccupied without how to transfer more Jewish land to the children of Ishmael—the pere adam. What is the pere adam?

Some commentators have translated pere adam as “a beast in the form of a man.” Genesis 16:12 says of Ishmael: “His hand shall be against everyone, and everyone’s hand shall be against him.” Midrash Rabbah (Genesis 45:9) refers to pere adam as “a savage among men in its literal sense, for whereas all others plunder wealth, he plunders lives.” » Continue reading “To Win: Call the Enemy by His Right Name”

Comments off

The 30-Year Olmert Government

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, November 26, 2007.

  1. Since the Camp David Summit of 1978, Israel has had no less than ten governments led either by the Likud, Labor, or Kadima. Whether “Zionist” or “post-Zionist,” “rightwing” or “leftwing,” all have pursued the same policy of “territory for peace.” All have contributed to the physical truncation and spiritual emasculation of Israel—and with the collaboration of the religious parties.

  2. It were as if the same government had been in power for almost 30 years! Yet certain Knesset members—with the American presidency in mind—tell us: “How can we endure four years of Olmert?” This ad hominem argument betrays unforgivable ignorance about Israeli government as well as about American government. On the territorial issue, Israel has had 30 years of “Olmert.” » Continue reading “The 30-Year Olmert Government”

Comments off

The Hidden Issue

1) Israel started on the road to Annapolis ten days after the Six-Day War, when a government of national unity offered to give the land Israel regained in that war to the Arabs. That same government allowed the Wakf (the Supreme Muslim Council) to retain control of the Temple Mount.

2) Oslo was initiated by Peres, not by Clinton. In 1978, Peres wrote Tomorrow is Now, in which he warned that a Palestinian state would threaten Israel’s existence. Ten years later he and MK Yossi Beilin arranged clandestine and illegal meetings with the PLO. The motive was not “Arab demographics” but “Jewish demographics.” Peres saw that Labor’s electoral base was shrinking, that religious Jews would eventually gain political ascendancy. To stop this process the Rabin-Peres government that came into power after the June 1992 elections eliminated the Jewish content from the public school curriculum. But it was also necessary to destroy the Jewish people’s historic memory, which was rooted in the prophetic teachings about Judea, Samaria, Jerusalem, and the Temple Mount. Hence “territory for peace.” » Continue reading “The Hidden Issue”

Comments off

The Complaint of an Israeli Soldier

“I’m turning in my uniform to Defense Minister Ehud Barak, and so are my buddies!”

Why? I asked.

“Look we fight, we fight against Fatah and Hamas other Arab terrorists, right? We risk our lives, some of us are wounded, some of my friends have been killed by these terrorists, and Barak and Olmert agree to releasing 435 of these bastards as a good will gesture to their terrorist leaders, like Mahmoud Abbas, Why the hell should I fight and risk my life when these politicians are more concerned about their seats and pleasing others than protecting us?”

But if everyone took your attitude, every soldier would lay down his arms and Israel would be slaughtered. Jewish mothers and fathers, wives and children, would be butchered and raped just as they were in Hebron in 1929. » Continue reading “The Complaint of an Israeli Soldier”

Comments off

Lee Harvey Oswald's Malign Legacy

by Daniel Pipes
Jerusalem Post
November 22, 2007

What's wrong with American liberalism? What happened to the self-assured, optimistic, and practical Democratic Party of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry Truman, and John F. Kennedy? Why has Joe Lieberman, their closest contemporary incarnation, been run out of the party? How did anti-Americanism infect schools, the media, and Hollywood? And whence comes the liberal rage that conservatives like Ann Coulter, Jeff Jacoby, Michelle Malkin, and the Media Research Center have extensively documented?

In a tour de force, James Piereson of the Manhattan Institute offers an historical explanation both novel and convincing. His book, Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism (Encounter), traces liberalism’s slide into anti-Americanism back to the seemingly minor fact that Lee Harvey Oswald was neither a segregationist nor a cold warrior but a communist.

Here's what Piereson argues: » Continue reading “Lee Harvey Oswald's Malign Legacy”

Comments off

Olmert's Betrayal of Mankind

Part I

I was recently invited by Pastor James Vineyard to speak to an audience including a group of American Baptist ministers in Jerusalem. This is what I said.

We meet here in dread of the forthcoming Annapolis Conference. We fear that the government of Israel may completely undo the miracle of the Six Day War. We fear that this government may yield the Temple Mount to our enemies. We fear that rewarding terrorists with the Temple Mount will accelerate the onward march of Islamic imperialism now threatening humanity.

Our Jewish Sages have said that the Temple Mount is of greater significance to the Gentile world than it is to Israel. Listen to the voice of Israel, to disparaged Pharisees regarding the sacrifices of seventy calves during the eight days of Sukkot, and note their humanitarianism. » Continue reading “Olmert's Betrayal of Mankind”

Comments off

Abbas and Olmert

The only thing truly reliable about Mahmoud Abbas is his boundless mendacity.

But what does this tell us about Ehud Olmert?

Comments off

The Ethos of Constitutional Democracy: Not For Export in the Arab World

Edited transcript of the Eidelberg Report, Israel National Radio, November 12, 2007.

In June 2002, President Bush announced a fundamental change in US Mideast foreign policy. Instead of maintaining the status quo or stability, which would perpetuate Arab autocracies, the US would promote democracy or regime change in the Arab world.

It seems that Mr. Bush or his advisors had a superficial view of the prerequisites of democracy—as if little more was needed than democratic elections and a constitution delineating the powers of the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. Lacking was an understanding of the ethos required for a constitutional democracy—an ethos utterly foreign to the Arab world.

I discuss this ethos in my booklet “The Myth of Israeli Democracy.” In theory, constitutional democ¬racy, as conceived in 18th century America, presupposes a fairly well educated community whose structure of government is rooted in ethical principles. » Continue reading “The Ethos of Constitutional Democracy: Not For Export in the Arab World”

Comments off

Philosophical Journalism

Political journalism is not politically neutral or “value-free.” This may also be said of political science, pretensions to the contrary notwithstanding. The reason is this:

The reporting of news, like academic discourse on politics, inevitably involves criteria of importance: some things are intrinsically more important than others. But criteria of importance are not politically neutral.

Moreover, the criteria employed by any political commentator depend on his intellectual breadth and depth. Some journalists, like some political scientists, have more experience and wisdom than others. They are not value-free, which is not to say that political commentary is a species of autobiography.

Confronting the journalist is a chaos of news data. What he selects for emphasis depends on objective as well subjective factors. » Continue reading “Philosophical Journalism”

Comments off