The thing is, Israel really is the driving issue in the Presidential debate. Not because I am a Jew or am Jewcentric, although you might think so considering what I blog about. But you'd be wrong.
It is the world's complicity with Islamic barbarism that catapults the Jewish issue to the fore. I am a secular Jew. If it were up to me, I'd just as soon never have the world mention the Jews again. And the people of Israel feel very much the same way. All they want is a little peace and quiet so they can live, love, work, create, invent, live -- which is why they have made the terrible mistakes of land giveaways and backbreaking concessions to Islam.
But the world and big media paint Israel in the most impossible, demonic light, while tenderly, gingerly making love to killers and savages.
The fact is, it is a values issue. Right and wrong. Good and evil. And what side you are on in the war between the civilized man and the savage speaks volumes about your character, your credibility and your morality. The well developed obfuscation used by the haters of good -- words like nuanced, gray area, complicated -- are tools to confuse and confound lazy thinkers. But in this, the opposing sides could not be more clear. Yes, there is a very definite good and a very definite evil. If national self-interest converges, all the better. But at the end of the day, if your national self-interest aligns itself with evil, your country is on a one way trip to nowhere. History is proof of that.
Americans know this. Time and time again they have demonstrated their support for Israel, even if their political leaders have not. Even now, with the world and mainstream media coming down mercilessly on Israel, the majority of Americans stand with Israel, support Israel. Polls show Americans have overwhelming support for Israel. And that is logical. America has always fought for the good. Which, BTW is why she (and Israel) are reviled in many circles: "hatred of the good for being good " (Rand).
So yes, Israel is the linchpin issue. Everyone agrees that Nazism and the Third Reich were bad, very bad. The fact is there was a conspiracy between Nazism and Islam (ongoing documentation and research by Dr Andrew Bostom here). So how can Nazism be bad and Islamism be good?
Rudy gets it, and this is why I support his candidacy. But the more we learn about Obama, the more troubling his candidacy becomes (although Hillary is just as bad, if not worse). Obama's support of Odinga in the Kenyan bloodbaths, by far, is the darkest indication that Obama sides with Islamists and their handmaidens. Caroline Glick agrees. In her last column;
Kibaki is close ally of the US in the war against Islamic terror. In stark contrast, Odinga is an ally of Islamic extremists. On August 29 Odinga wrote a letter to Kenya's pro-jihadist National Muslim Leaders Forum. There he pledged that if elected he would establish Sharia courts throughout the country; enact Islamic dress codes for women; ban alcohol and pork; indoctrinate schoolchildren in the tenets of Islam; ban Christian missionary activities, and dismiss the police commissioner, "Who has allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists."
Although Odinga is an Anglican, he referred to Islam as the "one true religion" and scorned Christians as "worshipers of the cross." Obama strongly supports Odinga who claims to be his cousin. As Daniel Johnson reported recently in the New York Sun, during his 2006 visit to Kenya, Obama was so outspoken in his support for Odinga that the Kenyan government complained to the State Department that Obama was interfering with the internal politics of the country. After the Dec. 27 elections Obama interrupted a campaign appearance in New Hampshire to take a call from Odinga.
And if you missed my column in Israel National News, read it: Obama, the Muslim Thing and why it Matters.
There's more on Obama's deal with the devil from Noah Pollak over at Commentary Magazine:
Obama and Israel, continued (hat tip Ed Lasky)
There has been an awakening in recent days to the presence of a disturbing number of foreign policy advisers to the Obama campaign who harbor hostile views of Israel. Ed Lasky of the American Thinker has been doing serious work on the subject, and his two pieces — here and here — are must-reads. Caroline Glick adds to the discussion here.
But there is another Obama foreign policy adviser–a prominent one–who has so far escaped criticism. This is Samantha Power, a Harvard professor, journalist, and human rights specialist who of late has become a high-profile liberal critic of American foreign policy.
For one, Power is an advocate of the Walt-Mearsheimer view of the American relationship with Israel. In a recent interview published on the Harvard Kennedy School’s website, Power was asked to explain “long-standing structural and conceptual problems in U.S. foreign policy.” She gave a two-part answer: the first problem, she said, is “the US historic predisposition to go it alone.” A standard reply, of course. The second problem, though, should give us pause:
Another longstanding foreign policy flaw is the degree to which special interests dictate the way in which the “national interest” as a whole is defined and pursued . . . America’s important historic relationship with Israel has often led foreign policy decision-makers to defer reflexively to Israeli security assessments, and to replicate Israeli tactics, which, as the war in Lebanon last summer demonstrated, can turn out to be counter-productive.
So greater regard for international institutions along with less automatic deference to special interests–especially when it comes to matters of life and death and war and peace–seem to be two take-aways from the war in Iraq.
Power is not just assenting to the Israel Lobby view of American foreign policy, but is also arguing that Israel had something to do with the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003–an appalling slander, and a telling one.
Also of note is a recent opinion piece Power wrote for TIME magazine, titled “Rethinking Iran,” the thrust of which rethinking involves the need to engage diplomatically the mullahs and pretend that the Iranian nuclear program is a figment of the paranoid imagination of the Bush administration. She writes:
The war scare that wasn’t [the recent incident between Iranian speedboats and the U.S. Navy in the Straight of Hormuz] stands as a metaphor for the incoherence of our policy toward Iran: the Bush Administration attempts to gin up international outrage by making a claim of imminent danger, only to be met with international eye rolling when the claim is disproved. Sound familiar? The speedboat episode bore an uncanny resemblance to the Administration’s allegations about the advanced state of Iran’s weapons program–allegations refuted in December by the National Intelligence Estimate.
Does Power actually believe that the NIE put to rest concerns about the Iranian nuclear program? If she actually thinks that — and it appears she does — she deserves voluminous ridicule from thinking people everywhere.
Does anyone think that if the time comes that Power has President Obama’s ear, she will advise him to do anything other than repudiate America’s greatest ally in the Middle East in favor of appeasing its greatest enemy? And here’s an even better question: Does Barack Obama have a single adviser who would tell him to do anything else?