RUTHFULLY YOURS

If the Jews are to prevail in the Arabs’ war against them it is essential that they accurately differentiate misleading red herrings from real root causes.

Our forces are now entirely ready not only to repulse any aggression, but to initiate it ourselves, and to destroy the Zionist presence in the Arab homeland of Palestine. The Syrian army, with its finger on the trigger, is united. I believe the time has come to begin a battle of annihilation.

– Hafez Assad, then Syrian defense minister, later president, May 20, 1967

We will not accept any… coexistence with Israel The existence of Israel is in itself an aggression…against the Palestinian people.

– Gamal Abdel Nasser, president of Egypt, to the international media, May 28, 1967

The existence of Israel is an error which must be rectified. This is our opportunity to wipe out the ignominy which has been with us since 1948. Our goal is clear – to wipe Israel off the map.

– Abdul Rahman Arif, president of Iraq, May 31, 1967

The Arabs have been waging war against the Jews and their presence in the Land of Israel for over a hundred years; they have been waging war against the Jewish political sovereignty for almost seven decades.

The war has ebbed and flowed over the years, but as I have pointed out in recent columns, we are entering a new, and particularly menacing, phase of ongoing Arab aggression aimed at the annihilation of the Jews and their nation-state. As Shmuley Boteach wrote in his column earlier this week, the sense is that “it’s open season on the Jews of Israel.”

Diagnosing root causes & red herrings

What is LA RAZA? http://www.nclr.org/index.php/about_us/

“The National Council of La Raza (NCLR)—the largest national Hispanic civil rights and advocacy organization in the United States—works to improve opportunities for Hispanic Americans. Through its network of nearly 300 affiliated community-based organizations, NCLR reaches millions of Hispanics each year in 41 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia. To achieve its mission, NCLR conducts applied research, policy analysis, and advocacy, providing a Latino perspective in five key areas—assets/investments, civil rights/immigration, education, employment and economic status, and health. In addition, it provides capacity-building assistance to its Affiliates who work at the state and local level to advance opportunities for individuals and families.Founded in 1968, NCLR is a private, nonprofit, nonpartisan, tax-exempt organization headquartered in Washington, DC, serving all Hispanic subgroups in all regions of the country. It has state and regional offices in Chicago, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Phoenix, and San Antonio.”
It sounds innocuous, but is far from harmless….They are big advocates of AZTLAN a separatist movement …. the real agenda of the La Raza movement is defying our laws, and demanding concessions.One of its ancillary organizations is the radical Chicano Student Movement of Aztlan (MEChA), which has permeated U.S. campuses since the 1960s, and continues its push to carve a racist nation out of the American West. Here is one of their statements:

“Chicano is our identity; it defines who we are as people. It rejects the notion that we…should assimilate into the Anglo-American melting pot…Aztlan was the legendary homeland of the Aztecas … It became synonymous with the vast territories of the Southwest, brutally stolen from a Mexican people marginalized and betrayed by the hostile custodians of the Manifest Destiny.” (Statement on University of Oregon MEChA Website, Jan. 3, 2006)

And here is the latest of their subversive acts……

http://dailycaller.com/2014/10/29/la-raza-promotes-washington-post-guide-on-where-people-can-vote-without-an-id/ by Patrick Howley

The pro-amnesty Hispanic activist organization the National Council of La Raza helpfully promoted a Washington Post article explaining which states people can vote in without having to use a photo ID.

“Voter ID laws are at-issue across the country, with newly Republican-controlled legislatures having passed them in numerous states after the 2010 election,” explained The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake. “Most states still request some form of ID, but don’t require it. Another 20 states don’t require identification. In case you’re wondering where your state is at in all of this, a helpful (sic) graphic from the Post’s graphics team.”

So who ended up using the Post’s helpful graphic? The country’s foremost pro-amnesty Hispanic immigrant organization.

The Chicago chapter of Asian Americans Advancing Justice tweeted Blake’s article with the message, “Reminder — #Illinois does NOT require #voterID to cast a ballot,” along with the pro-Democrat hashtag #TurnOutForWhat. The tweet was helpfully retweeted by the National Council of La Raza.

What seems odd is this obsession with Israel, with which she has no ties. Yet this Baroness, who claims to be motivated only by moral outrage, is considerably silent on the far worse moral outrages that go on day in and day out in a country with which she does have ties — of which she made a virtue while in office. Yet Baroness Warsi ignores entirely the horrific and continual human rights abuses in her own family’s homeland of Pakistan. Whether it is Christians being burned alive or the practice of “bonded labor” (slavery), Warsi appears utterly unconcerned. At present, a Christian mother of four is due to be hanged for blasphemy.

What is far more important is that the obsessions and blind spots of Baroness Warsi are the obsessions and blind spots being taught to a generation.

Moral equivalence must be one of the overriding curses of our age. Even those who are capable of making moral judgements now often find it easier to make equivalences between sides than to study facts and work out who may be or right or wrong. So whenever any conflict breaks out, much of the world can be relied on – from the United Nations downwards (or upwards) – to call for a cessation of the “cycle of violence.” In Britain last week, there was an especially flamboyant example of this trend, courtesy of the noble Baroness Warsi.

This is the woman who was promoted by Conservative party leader David Cameron seven years ago; once the Conservative party became the party of government in 2010, she became the first Muslim woman to attend Cabinet in Britain. She could have done an immense amount of good in that role. She could have led reformist trends within the Muslim communities in the UK. She could have acted as a demonstration that Muslims can be loyal British citizens without side clannish, religious or sectional interests overriding other interests. Instead she turned out to be a force of extraordinary regression, and someone who turned out to bang some very predictable drums.

This summer, when Israel was forced once again to engage in a highly targeted air and ground operation against Hamas terrorists in Gaza, the British government held fairly firm in support of our ally, Israel, in doing what it needed to do to a terrorist group that was kidnapping and murdering teenagers and heavily rocketing Israel.

But Baroness Warsi – who had only ever reached Cabinet because of David Cameron’s personal championing – resigned in protest. She claimed in her resignation that Britain’s ongoing support for Israel was morally indefensible.

Columbia County, Ark. — There’s no sign of it here in Magnolia, Ark., but the boycott season is upon us, and graduates of Princeton and Bryn Mawr are demanding “justice” from Wal-Mart, which is not in the justice business but in the groceries, clothes, and car-batteries business. It is easy to scoff, but I am ready to start taking the social-justice warriors’ insipid rhetoric seriously — as soon as two things happen: First, I want to hear from the Wal-Mart-protesting riffraff a definition of “justice” that is something that does not boil down to “I Get What I Want, Irrespective of Other Concerns.”

Second, I want to turn on the radio and hear Jay-Z boasting about his new Timex.

It is remarkable that Wal-Mart, a company that makes a modest profit margin (typically between 3 percent and 3.5 percent) selling ordinary people ordinary goods at low prices, is the great hate totem for the well-heeled Left, whose best-known celebrity spokesclowns would not be caught so much as downwind from a Supercenter, while at the same time, nobody is out with placards and illiterate slogans and generally risible moral posturing in front of boutiques dealing in Rolex, Prada, Hermès, et al. It’s almost as if there is a motive at work here other than that which is stated by our big-box-bashing friends on the left and their A-list human bullhorns.

What might that be?

If you want an illuminating example of the fact that there is more to the way that prices work in a free market than can be captured by the pragmatic calculations of cold-eyed util-traders, consider the luxury-goods market and its enthusiastic following among people who do not themselves consume many or any of those goods. One of the oddball aspects of rich societies such as ours is the fact that when people pile up a little bit more disposable income than they might have expected to, they develop a taste for measurably inferior goods and outdated technologies: If you have money that is a little bit obscene, you might get into classic cars, i.e., an outmoded form of transportation; if your money is super-dirty obscene, you get into horses, an even more outmoded form of transportation.

In light of comments such as those by American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten, one needs to consider the context of recent events in Ferguson. Weingarten asserts that . . .

the fact remains that on Aug. 9, an unarmed black teenager was shot and killed. Given that we are a nation of laws, one can only hope that the lack of an indictment isn’t tantamount to any lack of zeal on the part of the prosecutor to do the job he was supposed to do to enable the grand jury to arrive at an impartial and fact-based decision [.]

This case once again reminds us that there is still much work to be done to achieve racial justice in America. It tells us that our moral compass and legal systems do not always align.

Weingarten epitomizes the leftist ideology that continually must find a racial basis for anything that occurs in this country. That the facts do not align with what the liberals desire is infuriating to them and thus the real tragedy of Ferguson is:

. . . that in order to fully accept the evidence of the case, news commentators feel compelled to say that eyewitnesses to the attack on the police officer were black, thus implying that whites, by the very nature of their melanin level, would not have been capable of abiding by the rule of law. It continues to feed Obama’s premise that race should be the determining factor in everything. But, indeed, if race does make a difference in certain situations, why didn’t the first black president and his black attorney general reach out to the Ferguson black community and tell “one and all to respect a lawful grand jury finding.” Instead these men used their power and “invited mayhem.”
. . . that owners and operators of the town’s shops have had their windows smashed, their stores looted and their merchandise destroyed and burnt. In fact, the majority of affected stores are black owned. Does saying this imply that black hoodlums would care more about black-owned establishments being protected? Thugs are thugs. If it had been white-owned stores does that mean this hooliganism would be more readily accepted? Since when do we consider looters as having a sense of deportment? In fact, as former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani said, “the first minute you break a window, you are put in handcuffs” whatever your race.
. . . that instead of viewing the looting and burning as shameful events, there are those who would claim that these frustrated young people have a right to destroy their neighborhood. In his 1997 book titled For Shame, author James B. Twitchell writes “[s]hame is the basis of individual responsibility and the beginnings of social conscience. It is where decency comes from.” When will we begin to demand decency? When will this constructive type of shame become an integral part of people’s upbringing in an effort to contribute to the higher social good?

As Ferguson burned this week, the law books got a workout. Suddenly, grand-jury procedure was all the rage. Commentators better known for parroting the bromide that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich went berserk when the sandwich on offer was a white cop and the grand jury refused to bite.

As it turns out, there was no need to thumb the legal treatises of Blackstone or Joseph Story. If you were going to hit the books, Jonah Goldberg’s Liberal Fascism would have served you better. Brilliantly illustrating modern liberalism’s roots in 20th-century progressivism — a movement as comfortable marching lockstep with Stalin as it was borrowing copiously from Mussolini — Jonah homes in on the centrality of myth. It is irrelevant whether an idea around which the Left’s avant-garde rouse the rabble is true; the point is the idea’s power to mold consciousness and rally the troops.

For the American Left, a bedrock myth is that white cops kill black kids. It derives from the overarching myth that casts racism as our indelible national sin. As Heather Mac Donald explains, citing exhaustive criminology studies, it flows seamlessly from the quackery that dismisses the disproportionately high incidence of violent crime in African-American communities as an illusion — as the product of police racism and the consequent hyper-targeting of black boys and men, rather than of racial differences in patterns of offending.

Darren Wilson was a white cop and Michael Brown was a black teenager killed in a violent confrontation with Wilson. Therefore, Brown was the victim of a cold-blooded, racially motivated murder, Q.E.D. That is the myth, and it will be served — don’t bother us with the facts.

Once you’ve got that, none of the rest matters. In fact, at the hands of the left-leaning punditocracy, the rest was pure Alinsky: a coopting of language — in this instance, the argot of grand-jury procedure — to reason back to the ordained conclusion that “justice” demanded Wilson’s indictment for murder. And, of course, his ultimate conviction.

And if the U.S. recognizes “Palestine” then Israel should recognize “AZTLAN” AND CEDE A BIG SWATH OF THE SOUTHWEST”…rsk

As you know, quite a few European countries are in the process of “recognizing” the “state” of “Palestine.” The question arises of what the appropriate response from Israel should be to these actions by the Europeans.

SO here is a plan:

If Belgium recognizes “Palestine,” then Israel must recognize the separatist movements of the Flemish, the Walloons, and the Belgium Germans, and officially recognize the right of each group to set up its own state.

If Denmark recognizes “Palestine,” then Israel must recognize the separatist movement of the Faroese and officially recognize the right of the Faroe Islands to be an independent state.

If Finland recognizes “Palestine,” then Israel must recognize the separatist movements of the Åland Swedes, and officially recognize their right to set up their own state.

If France recognizes “Palestine,” then Israel must recognize the separatist movements of the Basques in France, of Brittany, of Northern Catalonia, of Savoy, of Occitania, and of course of Corsica. Israel should officially recognize their right to set up their own states and arm them generously.

.If Germany recognizes “Palestine,” then Israel must recognize the separatist movements of the Bavarians, the East Frisians, the Franconians, the Lusatians, and the people of Shleswig-Holstein, and Israel must officially recognize their right to set up their own states.

If Italy recognizes “Palestine,” then Israel must recognize the separatist movements of the Sardinians, the South Tyrolese, and the people of Lombardy, and officially recognize their right to set up their own states.

When St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert P. McCulloch explained that some exonerating testimony in the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, came from several African-American eyewitnesses who described Brown as having charged police Officer Darren Wilson before he fired the fatal shots, it was a powerful moment.

Such testimony was consistent with physical evidence establishing that Wilson had not fired at Brown’s back as repeatedly and poisonously alleged. Indeed, it would seem that the aggressor in this fatal encounter was not Wilson, but rather Brown. According to evidence the grand jury sifted and assessed, it seems that Wilson fired not in cold blood, as so often declared, but in self-defense.

It was this right to self-defense – “even” for a policeman – that the grand jury decision left sacrosanct when it determined there was simply not sufficient evidence to indict Wilson for any crime.

Shocking as it may seem, self-defense is not a bedrock right in some courts – specifically, U.S. military courts, where U.S. soldiers have seen their right to self-defense on the battlefield negated by murder convictions.

The St. Louis County prosecutor has now uploaded the grand jury proceedings (all 24 volumes), assorted evidence and witness interviews so all can see how the system worked, and how the grand jury came to its conclusion. This sets an unprecedented standard for transparency in the face of ongoing demagogic efforts to obscure or ignore these same facts. With incendiary talk of anger “rooted in reality,” as the president put it, the need for protests, the specter of federal charges and “change,” Barack Obama and an army of “racial arsonists” agitate not for justice, not for peace, but for power.