Displaying posts published in

December 2017

An avalanche of embassy moves to Jerusalem begins By Monica Showalter

Last week, the Trump administration’s announced that the U.S. embassy in Tel Aviv would move to Israel’s actual capital, Jerusalem. As the cognoscenti shrieked, some ten nations are now planning to do the same, in a snowball effect. According to the New York Post:

Israel is in talks with more than 10 countries — including some in Europe — about potentially moving their respective embassies to Jerusalem, according to officials.

Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely on Monday said the nations were interested in following President Trump’s footsteps and declaring the Israeli city the new capital in the wake of Guatemala’s recent decision to do so.

Pretty amazing what U.S. leadership will do. The U.S. move provided all ten of those nations plausible cover for moving their nations to Jerusalem after us. Prior to that, they stayed put.

But makes absolutely perfect sense for them to move. Here’s why.

Most nations want nothing to do with the Israel-Palestine conflict and have no influence over its events. They aren’t players, nobody wants their opinion, and they don’t have the expertise or exposure, and it’s none of their business. They are nations however, and nations have interests.

What’s the interest of a tiny nation such as Guatemala or Honduras in the broader conflicts of the Middlee East? Nil. But they do want to develop their countries and draw foreign investment to ensure job creation and a rising standard of living for their locals. One of the best nations for this pursuit of national interest is Israel. Would it not make sense for them to get on Israel’s good side and move their embassies to Jerusalem? The Israelis would be delighted and they would probably bend over backwards to help these nations in achieving their goals.

Israel is such a good ally for any nation to have.

For starters, and little known to the media community, Israel is a high-tech powerhouse to rival Silicon Valley. Other places try to set up Silicon Valleys and flunk but Israel is one of the few places that have really succeeded – and like the original Silicon Valley, there was nothing centrally planned about it. Israel is such a success as a tech powerhouse that some say it is the “brains” of Silicon Valley, given the kinds of outposts all the big tech companies have set up in that country and the kinds of operations (design and software development) they are.

Besides tech, Israelis are also famous problem-solvers — on intractible resource issues such as water and natural gas. Israel, after all, is the nation that made the desert bloom. It’s the nation whose greenery outlines its borders from airline flights. It has no water problems – it exports water. What’s more, with energy an issue in the last decade and fracking and other technologies for extraction rising, Israel has mastered many of these technologies and is poised to develop its great natural gas fields offshore, too.

It’s the can-do country. Case in point: the water problems Ethiopia has been having are being resolved by the Israelis.

Here is some perspective from George Gilder whose book, The Israel Test, is must-reading for understanding why good relations with Israel benefits every nation.

Leftists Declare War on Thomas The Train By Gamaliel Isaac

A conservative cynic from birth, I foolishly thought I had seen it all when it came to leftist madness. But then I saw, posted on CNN’s website, “Why kids love ‘fascist’ cartoons like ‘Paw Patrol’ and ‘Thomas’.” The article referenced several other articles that described Thomas as “a premodern corporate-totalitarian dystopia,” “imperialist racist and sinister,” and “classist, sexist, and anti-environmentalist.”

This caught my attention because my six-year-old boy — like children all over the world — loves stories of Thomas the Train. I recently took my children to Thomasland in Massachusetts and now my boy wants to visit the Thomasland in Japan. The Thomas cartoon is so popular that 1 billion dollars of merchandise related to the show is sold every year.

Reverend Wilbert Audrey, creator of Thomas the Train, has recounted how, when his 3-year-old son was ill with the measles, he told him stories about trains. Audrey says that in his own childhood he had to read boring books about perfect children so that he would learn from their moral example. He decided to write interesting books about engines with human characteristics in a fictional island he called Sodor. The trains would push the envelope until they got in trouble, be punished, and after making amends would be “bought back into the family so to speak.” Morality in the world of Thomas was making oneself useful to society, being a good friend, and keeping the railroad functioning smoothly. The human aspect of his trains is part of their appeal to children and the moral aspect of his stories was part of their appeal to the adults who read the stories to their children.

Now left-wing critics label the Thomas the Train show “racist” because the diesel villain is black. They call it totalitarian because trains are supposed to do what the manager of the rails, Sir Topham Hat, tells them to do. They call it sexist because there are more male trains than female trains. (In 2013 the British Labour shadow Transportation Secretary actually called out Thomas for its lack of females.) When Thomas is awarded two female passenger cars to pull because of good behavior, the feminists call this sexist too.

Rosie O’Donnell Calls Paul Ryan ‘Judas’ After He Celebrates Christmas on Twitter By Tyler O’Neil

Late on Christmas Eve, the 2017 finalist for Twitter’s most unhinged leftist compared House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wisc.) to Judas Iscariot, the notorious traitor who delivered Jesus Christ into the hands of the authorities leading to the Crucifixion. Ryan’s crime? Tweeting about Christmas.

“paul ryan — don’t talk about Jesus after what u just did to our nation — u will go straight to hell u screwed up fake altar boy #Judasmuch,” O’Donnell tweeted.

O’Donnell’s tweet referred to the Republican tax reform bill, which President Donald Trump signed into law on Friday. While tax reform was passing the U.S. Senate, O’Donnell sent a barrage of deranged tweets, well documented by PJ Media’s Stephen Kruiser.

“call 911 — crime in progress US SENATE,” O’Donnell tweeted Tuesday night.

Also that evening, she sent out a bribery offer, explicitly offering “2 million dollars” to Sens. Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) if they “vote NO NO I WILL NOT KILL AMERICANS FOR THE SUOER RICH DM me susan DM me jeff so sh*t 2 million cash each.”

Contrary to her deranged ravings, the tax bill will not kill anyone. The biggest count against it — from a liberal perspective — is that it will repeal the hated individual mandate in President Obama’s signature health care law, also known as Obamacare. This repeal has led to the charge that tax reform will result in 13 million people “losing” health insurance. In reality, the tax law merely removes a penalty for not signing up for insurance. This frees people who would not normally purchase health insurance from choosing between paying a hefty fine and buying something they would not normally buy. CONTINUE AT SITE

Ta-Nehisi Coates vs. Cornel West Hardly Qualifies as Debate They both think racism explains disparities today, and they seldom engage with those who disagree. Jason Riley

Remember that scene in “The Blues Brothers” when the dimwitted siblings, portrayed by Dan Aykroyd and John Belushi, enter a honky-tonk where they plan to play a show?

“What kind of music do you usually have here?” says Mr. Aykroyd.

“Oh, we got both kinds,” replies a chirpy barkeep. “We got country and western.”

The exchange came to mind last week when the best-selling writer Ta-Nehisi Coates quit Twitter in a huff after an argument with fellow black author Cornel West. Both men are committed liberals, but Mr. West, the veteran activist and Marxist academic, thinks that Mr. Coates’s writings don’t go far enough. Hard as it may be for some readers to fathom, Mr. West critiques Mr. Coates from the left.

What so upset Mr. Coates was a recent op-ed for the British newspaper the Guardian in which Mr. West praises his younger rival’s use of books and essays to highlight “the vicious legacy of white supremacy—past and present” and its “plundering effects” on black people. But he faults Mr. Coates for not connecting “this ugly legacy to the predatory capitalist practices, imperial policies (of war, occupation, detention, assassination) or the black elite’s refusal to confront poverty, patriarchy or transphobia.”

Ultimately, Mr. West writes, “Coates fetishizes white supremacy. He makes it almighty, magical and unremovable.” Mr. Coates’s focus on white absolution, in Mr. West’s view, is necessary but insufficient. “The disagreement between Coates and me is clear: any analysis or vision of our world that omits the centrality of Wall Street power, U.S. military policies, and the complex dynamics of class, gender, and sexuality in black America is too narrow and dangerously misleading.”

Mr. Coates’s defenders in academia and the media dismiss these attacks as little more than jealous rage. Back in the 1990s, they contend, Mr. West was one of liberalism’s black intellectual darlings, but his star has since faded (along with his scholarly output), and now he’s lashing out in frustration at a younger generation of black thinkers. CONTINUE AT SITE

In the Mideast, Trump Gives Reality a Chance The first step toward peace is to stop indulging the Palestinians’ fantasies of destroying Israel. By Reuel Marc Gerecht

A lot of people are in a funk over President Trump’s decision to recognize Jerusalem as Israel’s capital. The liberal media, most former government officials who’ve dealt with the Israeli–Palestinian imbroglio, and just about everyone at the United Nations appear certain that the decision had a lot to do with Mr. Trump’s disruptive nature, the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, Evangelical Christians and pro-Israel Republican donors.

It’s possible that his decision was based instead on an old-fashioned understanding of the way the world works, one that would be familiar to Middle Easterners: There are winners and losers in every conflict, and Palestinians have decisively lost in their struggle with the Jews of the Holy Land. Diplomacy based on denying reality isn’t helpful.

This view runs smack into the tenets of contemporary conflict resolution, in which diplomacy tries to make losers feels like winners, so that unpleasant compromises, at least in theory, will be easier to swallow. It alleviates the guilt of a Westernized people triumphing over Arabs that has made many in Europe and even the U.S. uncomfortable with Israeli superiority. It also runs counter to an assumption held widely among Western political elites—to wit, quoting the current French ambassador to the U.N.: “Israel is the key to peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.” Israelis, in this view, must make the big compromises.

The truth is surely the opposite. Recognizing the extent and irreversibility of Palestinian defeat is the first step in the long process of salvaging Palestinian society from its paralyzing morass. Far too many Palestinians still want to pretend they haven’t lost, that the “right of return” and Jerusalem’s unsettled status give hope that the gradual erosion of Israel is still possible. Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas tapped a common theme among Palestinians in his recent oration before the Organization of Islamic Cooperation when he complained that Jews “are really excellent in faking and counterfeiting history and religion.”

The biggest problem the Palestinians have is that the Israelis don’t trust them, and the Israelis cannot be ignored, sidestepped, bullied, bombed or boycotted out of eastern Jerusalem and the West Bank. Fatah, the lead organization of the Palestine Liberation Organization and the muscle behind the Palestinian Authority, has often acted publicly as if the Israelis weren’t the foreigners who truly mattered, appealing to Europeans, Russians and Americans to intercede on its behalf. Americans and Europeans have consistently encouraged this reflex by stressing their own role in resolving the conflict, usually by suggesting that they would cajole or push Israelis toward Palestinian positions.

For the Israelis, this has seemed a surreal stage play. The Fatah leadership is well aware that only the Israeli security services have kept the West Bank from going the way of the Gaza Strip, where Fatah’s vastly better-armed forces were easily overwhelmed by Hamas in 2007. Fatah’s secular police state—and that is what the Palestinian Authority is—has proved, so far, no match for Hamas.

Western diplomacy has failed abysmally to recognize the profound split between Palestinian fundamentalists and secularists and played wistfully to the hope that a deeply corrupt Fatah oligarchy could conclude a permanent peace accord with Israel. This delusion’s concomitant bet: Such a deal would terminally weaken Hamas, since the secularists would have finally brought home the mutton. CONTINUE AT SITE

Democracy, Putin-Style The Kremlin fears Alexei Navalny is too popular, bars his candidacy.

The rules for Russia’s presidential election this spring may appear opaque and confusing to outsiders, but they boil down to one. Vladimir Putin is running for re-election, and if you are someone whose popularity holds the potential to embarrass him, you’re not going to be allowed on the ballot.

That is what is now happening to Alexei Navalny, the Russian lawyer who uses a popular blog to expose corruption in government and state-owned entities. These included a March video that went viral accusing Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev of graft. For the past year, Mr. Navalny has been making trips across the country in a grass-roots election bid for the Russian presidency. As the election nears, Mr. Navalny is proving too popular for Mr. Putin’s tastes.

On Monday Russia’s top election body barred Mr. Navalny from running for president, invoking a politically motivated conviction for embezzlement to declare him ineligible. Mr. Navalny has responded by calling for Russians to boycott the election. So the Kremlin is now saying Mr. Navalny’s call for a boycott may also be illegal, and perhaps that will serve as pretext for another arrest.

Welcome to democracy, Putin-style. In today’s Russia, an opposition candidate is convicted on trumped up charges that are designed to scare him off from politics and his anticorruption campaigns. He decides to run anyway, and then is declared ineligible by virtue of the conviction. Which leaves the Kremlin in the position of threatening Mr. Navalny with more jail time for boycotting an election the Kremlin has prevented him from entering.

Mr. Navalny is a brave man who knows what he is doing and what he’s risking. But Mr. Putin’s moves against Mr. Navalny and his associates aren’t those of a strong and confident man. To the contrary, they are the actions of someone letting his fears get the best of him. In the video statement Mr. Navalny put out after he was declared ineligible, he had it exactly right: “Putin is terribly scared and is afraid of running against me.”