Daniel Greenfield article: The
Liberal Betrayal of Israel

Posted: 30 May 2010 08:08 PM PDT

Over the last two weeks, a liberal scholar and pundit named Peter
Beinart got a lot of attention by arguing that liberals could no
longer be pro-Israel because the country and its people had moved too far
to the right. The reality however is just the opposite. In every way, from
national defense to the role of religion in public life, Israel has
actually watered down its principles and liberalized. But it could not and
cannot keep up with the pace at which liberals have slid far to the
left.

The key factor in falling liberal support for Israel is not
inside the country, but outside it. As liberals have become more
radicalized, what used to be the left is now simply liberal. And the
delegitimization of Israel is part of a larger package of radical beliefs
which extends across the spectrum into every area of domestic and foreign
policy. For example the anti-Communist liberal who was not at all hard to
find in 1967 when Israel fought the Six Day War, is nearly extinct today.
And liberals who support the War on Terror are an endangered species. And
if they can't even support America's national defense, it's not surprising
that they don't support Israel's own national defense.

Beinart like
other left-wing Jewish critics insist that Israel needs to go further to
accommodate their support. But how much further is there to go? Israel has
worked for 17 years to cut a deal with the Muslim terrorist gangs who
employ a constructed identity as Palestinians to leverage international
support for their killing sprees. It has withdrawn from large amounts of
territory, provided weapons to their militias and even lobbied on their
behalf. Will the left suddenly begin supporting Israel, if after offering
East Jerusalem to them, Fatah and Hamas still refuse to make peace? We
know better than that. No offer Israel could make would suffice to
demonstrate its goodwill and the intransigence of the terrorist
gangs.

Beinart himself suggests that only when the Palestinian
terrorists are happy, and Israel is transformed into an oasis of social
justice, (and presumably all conservative parties are banned and the
Russian immigrants who voted in Lieberman are deported back to Russia)
will his compatriots possibly get on board with supporting Israel again.
Which really means that their support for Israel is conditional on the
Palestinian terrorists accepting Israel. That is not the way that people
who actually ever have any intention of supporting Israel talk or think.
It is the way that people who trying to strengthen the terrorists' hand
argue. And of course that is the real aim of the left.

The
radicalization of liberalism also meant the growing legitimation of
terrorism (particularly of those groups backed by the USSR and its left
allies) and the delegitimization of those governments resisting them. The
left routinely couches its political attacks on those governments in the
language of human rights-- but human rights has nothing to do with it. The
left hypocritically assails Columbia's Uribe on human rights, while giving
Castro, Chavez and the rest of the Marxist gang a pass. Just as it
assailed the condition of workers in the US, while giving Lenin and Stalin
a pass on an agricultural and industrial system built on the murder of
millions. Similarly the left jumps on every Israeli soldier who stops a
suspicious Muslim at a checkpoint, while ignoring not only Fatah and
Hamas' murder of Israeli civilians, but even their murders of their own
citizens.

None of this matters because the left doesn't believe in
human rights. It doesn't care about human rights. It never has. Not when
Stalin was paving roads with slave labor, nor when Saddam's minions were
entertaining themselves in rape rooms. Anyone who seriously thinks that
the left is actually outraged about Abu Ghraib because they care about the
dignity of man, rather than because they are congenital liars and
hypocrites who exploit any misstep by their enemies for propaganda
purposes, has not been paying attention. The majority of regimes that the
left wing has supported were non-democratic and routinely violate basic
human rights. The left not only doesn't give a damn, it defends every one
of their crimes.

So let's put to rest the farce that there is
anything Israel could do that would win over its left wing critics. The
same people who control the dialogue in the press and the melding of minds
at universities. To them it is not about justice or doing the right thing
or human rights. Those are just words that they use as weapons. Paying
attention to those words and trying to demonstrate your innocence only
makes you weak and vulnerable. And then they redouble their efforts to cut
you to pieces with them. That is what happened to America. It is what is
happening to Israel. It is what happens to anyone who stands in the way of
their red handed allies.

Of course the left does have a special
animus for Israel. And that animus came to the surface when liberalism
gave way to the radical left. Because while liberals have been Zionist,
the left has been notoriously anti-Zionist. The split goes back to
19th/20th century Europe, where left wing organizations competed with
Zionist groups for Jewish support. Both had very different visions of the
future. The left wanted to see Jews join in working to create Communism
and Socialism in their home countries, before assimilating into them. The
Zionists wanted a separate Jewish state. When the left won in Russia, they
made Zionism into a crime and the entire Hebrew language was banned as
"counterrevolutionary". Possession of a Hebrew dictionary could mean being
sent to the Gulags.

The USSR organized and armed entire Arab armies
to attack and destroy Israel. And like Nazi Germany had done before it,
the Commissars fed Anti-semitic propaganda to their allies in Europe. To
their credit, some resisted. Even many French Communists who had seen what
the Nazis did to the Jews were disgusted at being given cartoons and
messages strongly suggestive of Nazi Germany with orders to incorporate
them into their own newspapers. But that resistance is mostly history now.
Left wing politicians in Europe think nothing of claiming that Jewish
cabals control the government, refusing to publish the papers of Jewish
Israeli colleagues and supporting genocidal Islamic groups and countries
that vow to wipe out the Jews. That their behavior is an ominous echo of
the Hitler era means less than nothing to them. Just as it meant less than
nothing to the Nazis.

The left's opposition to Israel has nothing to do with human
rights, but with its insistent belief that Jewish separatism is
illegitimate and diverts recruits from their effort to build modern
socialist states. Beinart indirectly makes the same case, insisting that
support for Israel's survival must be subsidiary to the country's
compliance with the left's political values. Because of course the same
people who agitated against any overthrow of Saddam, when it comes to
Israel make their support conditional on passing an impossible test, in
which Israel either commits suicide to win their support, or survives and
loses their support. I
will only love you if you kill yourself .

The left is
determined not to allow any redefinition of Israel as legitimate. Its
hijacking of liberalism means that once again it feels driven to win
Jewish recruits by destroying any independent national and religious
identity that they may have. By forcing liberal Jews to choose between
their political allegiances and Israel, they are setting up a difficult
choice for them. Having the Obama Administration attack Israel was only
one of the many forms of strain introduced to create that breaking point.
Even while pundits like Joe Klein and Andrew Sullivan relapse into rants
against Israel that the editors of Der Sturmer would have run on the front
page.

This was what the left wanted all along. Consider the following
"forecast" of a perfect socialist future from H.G. Wells

And yet between 1940 and 2059, in little more than a
century, this antiquated obdurate culture disappeared. It and its
Zionist state, its kosher food, the Law and all the rest of its
paraphernalia, were completely merged in the human community. The Jews
were not suppressed; there was no extermination... but under the Tyranny
there was never any specific persecution at all; yet they were educated
out of their oddity and racial egotism in little more than three
generations. Their attention was distracted from Moses and the Promise
to Abraham and the delusion that God made his creation for them alone,
and they were taught the truth about their race. The world is as full as
ever it was of men and women of Semitic origin, but they belong no more
to “Israel”.

To understand Beinart and why the left really hates Israel,
read that paragraph very carefully. This is why
left wing anti-zionism is anti-semitism. It isn't that they want to
wipe out six million people of semitic ancestry. They just want Israel and
Jews gone. They would rather do it bloodlessly, with no "extermination" or
"specific persecution", but if the Jews don't cooperate, they still intend
to fulfill their goals.

People who think this way are not going to
be reassured that Israel is a good little country. To them Israel is
unacceptable. It is unacceptable because they reject the idea of a
separate Jewish national identity. And that robs them of manpower and ties
in with all sorts of religious ideas they would like to get rid of, among
both Jews and Christians.

And so they delegitimize Israel as a
country that has no right to exist. That has no right to defend itself.
That has no right to survive. That always does everything wrong. That is
an oppressor, that steals organs and is the neighborhood bully. An
unjustifiable monster disrupting the entire world. If it sounds familiar,
it should. The Nazis used those same arguments to justify a progression of
persecution that eventually culminated in genocide. The left is using them
today. And it may lie to itself about what its ends and means are, it may
even believe in its claptrap about human rights, but blood always tells
the truth in the end.

George Bernard Shaw, that corrupt old
socialist scribbler, said it simply enough: "Those Jews who still want
to be the chosen race... can go to Palestine and stew in their own juice.
The
rest had better stop being Jews and start being human beings." The
Beinarts still unconsciously echo Shaw like a dog howling for its deceased
master. And the message remains the same, that a real world Jewish state
is incompatible with being a liberal Jew. Liberal Jews can support the
rights of any and every people to a state (assuming that the left approves
of them) including that of the entirely mythical Palestinian people-- just
not the Jews.

Liberals betrayed Israel by allowing themselves to be taken
over by the left. Not against their will, but all too often they allowed
their own political radicalization to occur without considering the long
term implications. The further they went to the left, the more they turned
on their own country, and other countries the left considered its enemy,
such as Israel. And the left is busy indoctrinating their children against
the homelands.

The left does not hate Israel because of Ariel
Sharon, but because of Moses and Abraham and King David. It wants Jews to
forget that they are not merely cogs in a socialist state-- to forget that
are the descendants of kings and warriors. The sons and daughters of the
people who faced down Assyrian chariots and Roman legions, the children of
a great civilization in a sea of barbarism that changed the world.

They want us to forget, because a people that does not know its
own power is already enslaved. In the last century, we remembered that we
were the descendants of kings and warriors. Of queens and prophetesses.
Sailors and scholars. That we had a better destiny than to escape
prejudice by subsuming ourselves into the left's great dream of a
universal socialist state. We remembered and we started to become those
things again. The left fears this exodus from their power, as that ancient
Pharaoh feared the loss of his Hebrew slaves. They want us to forget. To
sink down again. To accept their brand of liberalism that denies our
rights in the name of their ideology. Their lies are chains around our
feet. Those who choose to be slaves will wear them proudly as iron badges
of honor. Those who choose to break them will be forever free.

Friday Afternoon Roundup - The Buck Stops Somewhere Else

Posted: 30 May 2010 01:44 PM PDT

With the Ground Zero Mosque approval,
it seems timely enough to run this satirical video of the Palestinian
Minister of Uncontrollable Rage visiting the Great Muslim City of New
York.

Meanwhile America's greatest actual Muslim, after steadily
avoiding any association with that giant mess in the gulf you may have
heard of, Obama waited until the company he maligned seemed likely to fix
it, to roll out his big "Savior of the Gulf" tour. This was cynical
posturing from a man who spent so much time passing the buck that he even
got called out for it by party loyalists like Chris Matthews and
James
Carville, who now wanted to get the credit for a solution he had
nothing to do with.

But this was also typical behavior from a man
surrounded by PR people who had cut their teeth on spinning modern
corporate failures. Rule 1 is to avoid being associated with the scandal,
Rule 2 is to be associated with the solution.

It's the same reason
why Obama avoids the military, whether it's ducking out on Memorial Day or
delaying a visit to Afghanistan for as long as possible once in office.
Egotists only want the credit, never the blame. And the kind of people who
surround Obama think in terms of "branding" not responsibility. But a year
of this kind of game has made it a little obvious. The press corps over
getting ignored. And even party loyalists can see that Obama doesn't do
anything without expecting a PR payday. Forget Harry Truman's The Buck
Stops Here, Obama's motto is, The Buck Stops Here, the Blame Stops
Somewhere Else.

But Obama's tour was not only ill timed, because
the solution was not quite as instantaneous as his crew had been
expecting, but because it seemed to be as much about ducking the Sestak
accusations, as about plugging the hole. The dubious achievement here was
that Clinton had managed to get involved in a political scandal without
even being in office. But there's only so far this can go. The primary
source for the claim is a Democrat wannabe Senator, who isn't about to
bring down the Obama Administration just because they tried to suppress
him in the primary. He may be bitter, but mostly he's maneuvering in an
environment in which Obama has lost his golden halo, and has to hold off
the possibility of an independent bid by Arlen Specter. Like a surprising
number of Democratic Senators, he doesn't seem to mind screwing over
Obama, but neither is he about to do any real damage there.

But you
can spot the return of the words Clinton + Scandal by the media as US News
and World Report wonders "What Constitutes a Bribe?" Media Matters trips
all over itself with one of its more convoluted headlines to date,
"Right-wing media absurdly declare false Sestak "bribe" allegations
"Obama's Watergate". Meanwhile the Washington Post helpfully informs us in
an editorial that; "Ethics laws do not seem designed for this
circumstance." Which is convenient of course. If only Gore were here to
remind us that there's no legal controlling authority.

So far the
only winners here are Sestak and Issa, both of whom have leveraged this to
raise their profile. But the Obama Administration has suffered another
embarrassment, and each one serves to undermine its standing, not only
with the general public, but with its own supporters. Even the Washington
Post is being forced to argue that its whitewash of Sestakgate was
complicated by the White House's lack of transparency. This reflects the
underlying frustration of an MMS that wants desperately to give Obama
favorable coverage, but is being shown a brick wall instead.

But
Republicans should be worried. As public frustration continues to grow, it
won't just stop with the Democrats. Particularly if the Republicans score
recognizable victories in 2010. There are troubling poll shifts in some
elections already.

Thomas Del Beccaro at Big Government argues
that
local races need nationalization, but that too may be a fundamental
mistake. Critz didn't beat Burns on national issues, but on local issues.
Just as Bill Owens beat Doug Hoffman on local issues.

Senate races
can be fought and won on national issues, but congressional fights are
local. And trying to fight national battles locally is how NY-23 was lost.
Critz won because he connected himself to Murtha's legacy, such as it is,
trotted out his widow, and pretended to be fairly conservative on issues
that mattered locally. Most voters just want someone to represent their
community, and the Democrats have their majority thanks to the fraud of
Conservative Democrats who pretend to believe one thing while doing
another.

But over in New Jersey, Governor Christie is teaching a
master class in how to win locally by applying national conservative
principles to local matters. Christie never has to mention Obama or a
national deficit. Instead he attacks liberal arrogance and entitlement
directly with common sense challenges. It's what Reagan did so well and
had McCain done that, we wouldn't have Obama in office right now. And any
Republican Presidential candidate who wants to run in 2012 had better
master doing it now.

Right now the Republican party does not have
its house in order, and the Rand Paul and Haley Barbour messes are not
helping. The only winning Democratic strategy has been to focus on
Republican scandals, which is a win because they have a tame media in
their corner. They played that card effectively enough once before.
They'll be happy to do it again to sabotage a Republican congressional
takeback.

The Democrats have realized that focusing on tarring Tea
Party activists directly is a losing hand, and they're slowly backing off
that strategy, which only helped build the Tea Party's populist appeal.
And so they're shifting for another go at Republican politicians. Rand
Paul's win was a major victory for them, as it allowed them to put an ugly
face on a movement by associating it with a politician who had little to
actually do with it. Between the Paulestinians and the liberal media, the
trap was neatly sewn together for Republicans by these two groups. And
with the Maddow interview, plenty of them fell into the trap of defending
Rand Paul. Which is the old strategy that Dick Morris formulated under the
Clinton Administration.

Winning requires being smart. Because it's
very easy
to be stupid. It's very easy to get bogged down in internal politics
and rivalries, or sabotaged by people who seize the advantage to exploit
the political chaos for their own benefit.

Because of the media
imbalance, Republicans will need to go forward with a clean house. If they
can't do that, things will get very ugly, very fast. And the public will
decide that both parties are hopeless, and that it doesn't matter who
wins.

Turning to the Ground Zero Mosque, Walid Shoebat has an
article in which Imam Feisal admits he wants to bring Sharia law to
America.

Is Imam Faisal Abdul Rauf – founder of the hugely
controversial Ground Zero Mosque – lying to the American
public?

We have uncovered extraordinary contradictions between
what he says in English and what he says in Arabic that raise serious
questions about his true intentions in the construction of the
mosque.

...

Only two months before, on March 24, 2010,
Abdul Rauf is quoted in an article in Arabic for Rights4All entitled
(from one of his responses) “I Do Not Believe in Religious
Dialogue”.

...

In the article, the Imam said the following
of the “religious dialogue” and “interweaving into the mainstream
society” that he so solemnly seems to advocate in the Daily News and
elsewhere: “This phrase is inaccurate. Religious dialogue as customarily
understood is a set of events with discussions in large hotels that
result in nothing. Religions do not dialogue and dialogue is not present
in the attitudes of the followers, regardless of being Muslim or
Christian. The image of Muslims in the West is complex which needs to be
remedied.”

But that’s only the beginning of what we learn from
the Rights4All piece. When asked his view regarding an Islamic state,
Abdul Rauf responded that “Throughout my discussions with contemporary
Muslim theologians, it is clear an Islamic state can be established in
more then just a single form or mold. It can be established through a
kingdom or a democracy. The important issue is to establish the general
fundamentals of Shariah that are required to govern. It is known that
there are sets of standards that are accepted by [Muslim] scholars to
organize the relationships between government and the
governed.”

When questioned about this, Abdul Rauf continued
“Current governments are unjust and do not follow Islamic laws.” He
added “New laws were permitted after the death of Muhammad, so long of
course that these laws do not contradict the Quran or the Deeds of
Muhammad…so they create institutions that assure no conflicts with
Shariah.”

...

In yet plainer English, Abdul Rauf’s goal is
the imposition of Shariah law – in every country, including the U.
S.

He made that even clearer in an interview with Sa’da Abdul
Maksoud that appeared on the popular Islamic website Hadiyul-Islam on
May 26, 2010 – one day after his article for the New York Daily
News.

In the Hadiyul-Islam article, Abdul Rauf reiterates that an
Islamic state under Shariah law with no separation of church and state
can be established even when the government is a kingdom or a
democracy.

...and we are letting it happen.

But never fear the
Federal Government is keeping up its war on terrorists. Wait, no not on
terrorists, on
people who infiltrate and expose terrorist
organizations.

The Department of Homeland Security is trying to deport
the son of a Hamas founder who told of his conversion to Christianity
and decade of spying for Israel in a New York Times
best-seller.

Yousef said the DHS informed him Feb. 23, 2009, he
was barred from asylum in the U.S. because there were reasonable grounds
for believing he was "a danger to the security of the United States" and
"engaged in terrorist activity."

An incredulous Yousef said the
U.S. government's belief he is a terrorist is based on a complete
misinterpretation of passages of his book in which he describes his work
as a counterterrorism agent for the Israeli internal intelligence
service Shin Bet...

Meanwhile in Peru, convicted terrorist Lori Berenson has
been freed and her parents are working hard to get her "deported" to the
US. Despite the fact that a Peruvian court convicted her of participating
in terrorist activities. While the hard left has tried to turn Lori
Berenson into another Rachel Corrie, a suffering martyr, the fact is that
Berenson hates America, just as much as she hates Peru.

Her own
words are her
best indictment

More than a year ago, the world witnessed the inhumane
transfer of Taliban prisoners of war to the US military base in
Guantanamo, Cuba, and, of course, no one really knows what they may be
suffering, as is the case of the many detained in jails across the US
after the September 11, 2001 attack on the World Trade Center and
Pentagon. It reminds me of life in Peruvian jails where, for many years,
the public could not find out what happened to prisoners in jail, much
less what happened in the army or police headquarters during
interrogations designed to extract information. Being a political
prisoner myself, I have first-hand knowledge of what it is like to be in
the hands of a system that not only detests prisoners (especially
political prisoners or prisoners of war), but also regards them as being
something less than human.

and again...

President Bush insists that we won’t let terrorists
destroy our way of life. Remembering the suffering experienced in the
aftermath of Katrina and the blatant indifference many politicians
demonstrated to the people in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, one
should wonder why anyone would want to defend that way of life.

Lori Berenson is a hardened radical. She does not belong in
the United States. She belongs in jail. People like her aid terrorists
with the aim of bringing down all of society into ruin and rubble, and
creating their own perfect dictatorship. And the people who have been
taken in by her, who wrote letters on her behalf asking for her release
made a terrible mistake. And before you say anything about her parents,
her mother wrote a book about Lori Berenson. The foreword to it was
written by Noam Chomsky. The afterword by Ramsey Clark.

Whether
it's Rachel Corrie or Lori Berenson, the enemy knows quite well that we
are vulnerable to the sight of what seems to be innocent young girls
suffering. But they are not innocent. They chose to affiliate themselves
with evil. With murder and atrocity. They do not deserve any pity
whatsoever.

In the UK meanwhile Muslims are continuing
their campaign against Jewish rights to our own history and
identity

A Muslim campaign group has written to the new Education
Secretary Michael Gove to object to state-aided Jewish schools promoting
Zionism.

Mohammed Asif, the chief executive of Engage (not to be
confused with the antisemitism monitoring group of the same name), said
he was "more than a little surprised" to see Zionism included as part of
the ethos of several Jewish schools.

Mr Asif cited a number of
Jewish schools professing explicit support for Zionism, including
Manchester's King David High School, Broughton Jewish Cassel Fox Primary
in Salford, and Simon Marks Jewish Primary School in Hackney, north
London.

He wrote that he understood the Jewish nature of the
schools, but that he would "contest the place of Zionism in the school's
governing ethos".

A spokesman for the Department of Education
said it had not yet had time to respond to the letter. Jon Benjamin,
chief executive of the Board of Deputies, commented: "There is nothing
at all remarkable or contentious in a Jewish school stressing the
spiritual and historical connection of Jews to the land of Israel, and
the centrality of those connections to our faith. It is those who
attempt to characterise Zionism as an anathema to Judaism who are trying
to score political points."

King David's website, explaining the
aims of its Jewish studies programme, states that the school has "a
strong Zionist ethos and all students are given the opportunity to visit
Israel. A love and appreciation of Israel is woven into the
curriculum."

Of course no one is demanding that say Muslim schools stop
mentioning their claims to Jerusalem or Mecca.

And a Muslim demand
to remove Israel from the values of a Jewish school is a direct attack on
Judaism and the Bible, which is after all the story of G-d and the Jewish
people as defined by the Land of Israel. There is no way around
that.

Square Mile Wife has
her own take on my Liberalism's
Obesity Obsession piece.

Health and fitness are all about class. In the UK (where
a class system is still rigidly in place) people of a certain social
strata will refuse to shop at certain grocery chains because in their
eyes they are not up to snuff. If you tell people here you work-out,
they will immediately ask you what gym you belong to and based on your
answer will try to estimate your income level and social position.

The number of responses to Beinart's
smear continues to grow. Noah Pollak had
the definitive response at Commentary, Ted Bromund has an interesting
conclusion as well. (Via Love
of the Land)

For Beinart is not really writing about Israel at all.
For him, and for the thousands of allies this lonely man possesses, the
real issue is that, as Ben points out, Israel was born of a 19th-century
nationalist impulse. At the time, that was not illiberal. On the
contrary, support for national self-determination, as long as the people
in question were capable of founding and sustaining a legitimate,
sovereign state, was the essence of liberalism. The only difference was
that the Jewish people, instead of being oppressed by one foreign power
— as the Poles were by the Russians, or the Greeks by the Turks — were
being oppressed by many.

The problem today is not that the peace
process has failed or that this reveals the failure of the liberal
vision. All that is true enough. The problem is that the liberal vision
itself has changed. Not all liberals reject the nation-state, but
suspicion of the nation-state as the organizing unit for the world does
stem predominantly from the left. In view of the importance that the
left attaches to the state as the provider of welfare benefits, this is
both ironic and contradictory. But it does not change the fact that one
reason liberals (especially those of a European persuasion) have fallen
out of love with Israel is that it — along with the United States — was
founded on and persists in maintaining a democratic and nationalist
vision.

This is why the liberal critics bracket Israel and the
U.S. They claim they do so because the U.S. supports Israel. Actually,
they do it because they reject the worldview on which both nations are
founded, the worldview that has motivated the U.S. to support Israel.
For the critics, democracy and nationalism must ultimately be in
conflict. Hence the importance of the EU and transnational initiatives
like the International Criminal Court. This is a worldview founded in
the European reaction to the Second World War. The fact that this war
led to the destruction of the European nations and the rise of the
Israeli one is another reason for anti-national liberals to look upon it
with scorn: to them, Israel appears to be resisting the lessons of
history.

There is a good deal of truth to that, but there is one
complication. Liberals are enthusiastically in favor of some states. They
want a Palestinian state. They supported Saddam's right to massacre his
own people. What they oppose are states that represent a particular set of
values. Not merely nationalism, but the nationalism of civilized
countries.

And another addendum vis
a vis a different foreign policy approach for Israel

This foreign policy will succeed if it drives a wedge
between liberal, Western democracies and the Arab world by exploiting
the biggest point of weakness of that peculiar alliance. Namely, the
fact that Arab demand that Jews be expelled from their homes, violates
deep seated Western values and legal traditions. Furthermore, this
foreign policy will succeed by demanding that the West adhere to its own
democratic values by demanding that Arab nations grant to their own
people those civil rights routinely granted by Western societies. The
objective is to drive a wedge between Arab totalitarianism and Western
liberalism.

This new foreign policy will make demands of the Arab
world consistent with Western values, by demanding Arab states grant
their Arab inhabitants basic civil rights, such as citizenship for
Palestinians living inside the Arab world. It will force the West to
deal with Gaza not as a “humanitarian crisis” caused by Israel but as a
totalitarian state oppressing its own people, allied with Iran. The
objective is to drive a wedge between Arab totalitarianism and liberal
Western governments.

To close wit , Rahm
hears some truth, Noam Shalit still
ready to sell out to Hamas in any way to get his son back and Caroline
Glick on the importance of reclaiming
our language from the left.

Chomsky has repeatedly defended Holocaust deniers while
accusing Israel of being the ideological heir of Nazi Germany. When he
hasn't been too busy championing the Khmer Rouge and Josef Stalin, and
attacking the US as the Great Satan, Chomsky has devoted much time and
energy to calling for Israel's eradication and defending Palestinian and
Hizbullah terrorists.

IT WAS the government's job to point this
out. But instead, faced with the leftist onslaught against its right to
control its borders, the government crumpled. Instead of explaining that
Chomsky is an enemy of Israel and an abettor and defender of genocide,
Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu's spokesman Mark Regev apologized for
the unpleasant reception Chomsky received at the Allenby Bridge. Regev
also promised that if Chomsky returns, he will be granted an entry
visa.

The government's cowardly handling of the Chomsky incident
is testament to the Left's success at intimidating Western leaders to
the point where instead of standing up to leftist propaganda and lies,
they accept them as truth and even collaborate in disseminating
them.