This week, I have 2 articles that I'd like to call your attention to, and I also want to make some comments of my own.
The first article presents the clear evidence of Iran's incitement to genocide, according to the Genocide Convention, of which Iran is a signatory. Most importantly, this article outlines clearly the steps that can and most certainly SHOULD be taken against Iran, all under international law. Yet, NONE of these have been done. It's easy enough to understand why people are reluctant to go to WAR with Iran, but there are NO excuses whatsoever for failing to bring Iran and its genocidal leaders before international tribunals with charges of incitement to genocide. This shows that the world, unfortunately including the U.S., does not really mean "never again". It's nothing but empty words! They're only concerned about genocides AFTER they happen. It's so much easier just to wring one's hands after the fact!
Our second article delineates how clearly the Obama administration has NOT supported Israel, and how much they have followed the Arab line in this conflict. Note that this is about ACTIONS taken or not taken, NOT about what they CLAIM to have done or plan to do for Israel.
This brings me to the point I want to talk about this week. The election season is in full swing in the U.S., and anybody old enough to vote should realize that the politicians, especially the candidates for President of the United States (including the incumbent) will say ANYTHING at all that they think will win them votes, particularly in the swing states. By the same token, they will try to AVOID saying anything that might lose them votes. In other words, it's the season of pandering.
The best thing to do is to close your eyes and ears to EVERYTHING that they say at this time, whether it's things you LIKE to hear or things you DON'T like to hear. It really doesn't matter, folks!
So, how SHOULD you decide whom to vote for? I have two suggestions. First, look at the candidate's actual actions in the past (and even now!). When he had a real opportunity to make a decision regarding an issue that you consider important, what did he do? You'll find that this is often quite at odds with whatever things they're saying right now. Obama is supporting gay marriage now? That's wonderful, but where was he when he could really have made a difference? Still "evolving"! Republicans are speaking loudly against health care for all now? Unfortunate, but what actually happened in Massachusetts when Romney was governor there?
My second suggestion is to follow the money. Political campaigns, especially presidential ones, are incredibly expensive these days (thanks, in part, to the Supreme Court's action to prevent limits on campaign contributions). This means that ANY candidate must spend a LOT of time raising money. How can they convince people and corporations to give up their hard-earned (or not-so-hard-earned) cash? In one word, ACCESS! Of course, they can NOT promise any particular vote or action on any particular issue, since that would make the money a bribe! But they can and do offer ACCESS to the person or company that has donated generously to their campaign.
Now, here's the difficult part. You need to try to find out WHO has donated, and you need to try to determine WHY this person or company might want access. What is their interest? What will make life easier or more profitable for them? If this will also improve YOUR life, then perhaps your interests are actually aligned with them. If not (which is FAR more likely unless you're very rich!), then their interests are probably at ODDS with yours. Of course, one big problem here is that many corporations actually donate to BOTH candidates and BOTH parties because they're basically hedging their bets and because they want to be sure to have influence and access no matter WHO wins.
So remember: ignore words now, look at past actions, and try to follow the money.
That's it for this week!
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Saturday, September 8, 2012
Week ending September 8, 2012
Since I have posted for about 3 weeks, there's quite a bit to talk about today. So let's get right to it!
Our first article is a reminder of Iran's steadfast and unchanging demand, using the most graphic and offensive images, that Israel be destroyed. The last time we heard this kind of thing was in Hitler's rants in the 1930s about destroying the Jews. Now, as then, people mostly tend to take it merely as deplorable rhetoric, rather than realizing that it is a serious threat and will be carried out unless those who issue it are stopped. Neville Chamberlain (who claimed to have achieved "peace in our time") would feel right at home with today's "no war with Iran no matter what" attitude.
Our next article, though a little long, is a very important read, because it's about attitudes in the Arab and Muslim world towards the premeditated murder of Jews, especially children. EVERY possible group you can imagine has its "crazies". Often they are mostly ignored, and frequently they are condemned by a broad centrist consensus. In this case, though, the murderer, who proudly accepts that she did it, is glorified, honored, and highly praised as a role model, and there are NO condemnations whatsoever. This is the horrifying reality that Israel is up against, plain and simple.
Our third article is about the dismissal of a wrongful death suit against Israel brought by the parents of Rachel Corrie, who was tragically killed by an Israeli armored bulldozer some years ago. This courageous judge looked carefully and in detail at all the evidence and concluded that she was basically responsible for her own death. She was in a closed military area where dangers abounded on all sides, and she failed to take even minimal precautions against them. Of course, the organization that sent her also bears responsibility for taking advantage of an idealistic young woman who really didn't understand (or maybe refused to understand) that she was being sent out, not as a "peace" activist, but as cannon fodder in a war.
The next article is about pay for terrorists. This is NOT pay from Hamas (who openly support terrorism and proudly proclaim that their only goal is the complete destruction of Israel). No, this is from the allegedly "moderate" Palestinian Authority. Several things are worth noting here, as well. Despite the fact that the PA is experiencing a serious budget crunch, they actually managed to RAISE the "salaries" of terrorists in Israeli jails (who actually need NO money at all -- they're prisoners!). And where does the PA get most of its money from? From the international community, including the U.S., that's where. Your tax dollars at work!
The next two articles are about political organizations in the U.S. who CLAIM to be "pro-Israel". The first is about J Street and a letter they sent to rabbis in North America. The letter SOUNDS like it is very supportive of Israel on the surface, but a more careful analysis reveals that it is dangerously ANTI-Israel and advocates policies that, if carried out, would almost certainly lead to the DESTRUCTION of Israel. The second is about the recent debacle at the Democratic National Convention regarding whether Jerusalem should or should not be mentioned as the capital of Israel. Now we know that the platforms of major political parties these days in the U.S. are mostly meaningless. The INTERESTING thing here was the amount of vocal opposition by the rank-and-file delegates on the floor to acknowledging the reality that Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel. True, they didn't win, but the scary thing is that there were LOTS of them there! With friends like these ...
Our last article for this time is the second in a series of articles that carefully and thoughtfully argue that the 2-state solution is unrealistic, unattainable, and even bad for all involved. Obviously, a position like this requires some rather careful analysis because the 2-state solution has been the only one seriously considered for so long now. I encourage you to read these articles, especially if you think you'll disagree with his conclusion.
Our first article is a reminder of Iran's steadfast and unchanging demand, using the most graphic and offensive images, that Israel be destroyed. The last time we heard this kind of thing was in Hitler's rants in the 1930s about destroying the Jews. Now, as then, people mostly tend to take it merely as deplorable rhetoric, rather than realizing that it is a serious threat and will be carried out unless those who issue it are stopped. Neville Chamberlain (who claimed to have achieved "peace in our time") would feel right at home with today's "no war with Iran no matter what" attitude.
Our next article, though a little long, is a very important read, because it's about attitudes in the Arab and Muslim world towards the premeditated murder of Jews, especially children. EVERY possible group you can imagine has its "crazies". Often they are mostly ignored, and frequently they are condemned by a broad centrist consensus. In this case, though, the murderer, who proudly accepts that she did it, is glorified, honored, and highly praised as a role model, and there are NO condemnations whatsoever. This is the horrifying reality that Israel is up against, plain and simple.
Our third article is about the dismissal of a wrongful death suit against Israel brought by the parents of Rachel Corrie, who was tragically killed by an Israeli armored bulldozer some years ago. This courageous judge looked carefully and in detail at all the evidence and concluded that she was basically responsible for her own death. She was in a closed military area where dangers abounded on all sides, and she failed to take even minimal precautions against them. Of course, the organization that sent her also bears responsibility for taking advantage of an idealistic young woman who really didn't understand (or maybe refused to understand) that she was being sent out, not as a "peace" activist, but as cannon fodder in a war.
The next article is about pay for terrorists. This is NOT pay from Hamas (who openly support terrorism and proudly proclaim that their only goal is the complete destruction of Israel). No, this is from the allegedly "moderate" Palestinian Authority. Several things are worth noting here, as well. Despite the fact that the PA is experiencing a serious budget crunch, they actually managed to RAISE the "salaries" of terrorists in Israeli jails (who actually need NO money at all -- they're prisoners!). And where does the PA get most of its money from? From the international community, including the U.S., that's where. Your tax dollars at work!
The next two articles are about political organizations in the U.S. who CLAIM to be "pro-Israel". The first is about J Street and a letter they sent to rabbis in North America. The letter SOUNDS like it is very supportive of Israel on the surface, but a more careful analysis reveals that it is dangerously ANTI-Israel and advocates policies that, if carried out, would almost certainly lead to the DESTRUCTION of Israel. The second is about the recent debacle at the Democratic National Convention regarding whether Jerusalem should or should not be mentioned as the capital of Israel. Now we know that the platforms of major political parties these days in the U.S. are mostly meaningless. The INTERESTING thing here was the amount of vocal opposition by the rank-and-file delegates on the floor to acknowledging the reality that Jerusalem IS the capital of Israel. True, they didn't win, but the scary thing is that there were LOTS of them there! With friends like these ...
Our last article for this time is the second in a series of articles that carefully and thoughtfully argue that the 2-state solution is unrealistic, unattainable, and even bad for all involved. Obviously, a position like this requires some rather careful analysis because the 2-state solution has been the only one seriously considered for so long now. I encourage you to read these articles, especially if you think you'll disagree with his conclusion.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)