In a recent speech at New York University in February, at a forum co-hosted by the White House and the Islamic Center at New York University, John Brennan, the White House’s top counterterrorism adviser, called Jerusalem by its Arabic name “Al-Quds,” praised Saudi Arabia for its religious tolerance, and encouraged Hizbullah while calling Jihad a legitimate tenet of Islam (Read more here)While these comments normally would be considered outrageous, disgraceful and a source of derision by rational individuals, especially those who know and understand history, one must realize that his words may easily be construed as a deliberate action of the Obama administration to help Muslims dejudaize Jerusalem and Israel and thereby, help bring about Israel’s destruction and that of the Jewish people. One must realize that the Obama administration has a great advantage in spreading its venom since it is working with a pastiche consisting of the unrelenting anti-Israel/antisemitic attacks of the political left, the Arab Muslim propaganda machine and a compliant antisemitic world-wide media. Similarly, one should not forget that hate is the most powerful human emotion and that religiously inspired hate is more powerful than any other stimulant – including nationalism – unless it is the marriage of religion with nationalism, in its broadest sense, which is exceedingly prevalent in the Muslim world.
Before you think me mad and paranoid, let us look at some of the evidence in addition to that most recent and obvious action of President Obama’s very public and undeserved attempt at humiliating Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his disgraceful and cowardly beating up of Israel.
However, Brennan’s statements leave me puzzled as to where to begin an analysis.
Why would President Obama select John Brennan as his surrogate? Certainly, as head of the counterterrorism department, his would be a powerful voice for whitewashing Saudi Arabia and the Muslim nations of their anti-civilized behavior. Who could be better to provide exoneration, grant dispensation and help change the American public’s negative perception of Saudi Arabia and other Muslim nations and Israel’s positive perception than John Brennan, a man who, as a result of his education and environment, has been primed all of his life to have an animus towards Israel and Jews and who, as a result of his professional employment in the state department, who had or developed a predilection for Israel’s enemies to carry out such a two pronged task? John Brennan is a Roman Catholic who was born and raised in Bergen, NJ, one of the more notorious communities in the country having an infamous past and present with respect to Nazism and antisemitism, who was educated in the Roman Catholic educational system and who spent a good part of his adult life representing the Muslim Mid-East to America (Chief of Station, Middle East, CIA; Deputy Director, Office of Near Eastern and South Asian Analysis, CIA; Deputy Division Chief, Office of Near Eastern and South Asian Analysis, CIA; Middle East Specialist and Terrorism Analyst, Directorate of Intelligence, CIA; Political Officer, U.S. Embassy in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, Department of State).
In the same speech, Brennan also spoke of his time at the American University in Cairo in the 1970s, referring to the common aspirations of his former Egyptian, Jordanian and Palestinian classmates, including the freedom “to practice our faith freely … In Saudi Arabia, I saw how our Saudi partners fulfilled their duty as custodians of the two holy mosques at Mecca and Medina.”
Yet, while these Muslims refer to practicing their Muslim religion, they refuse the same right to others. But such uncivil actions do not seem bother John Brennan since he has no compunctions about outright lying about his Muslim charges by praising Saudi Arabia for its religious tolerance.
Yet the reality of Saudi Arabian attitudes towards others is grounded in its government and belies his statement. It is well known that Islam is the official religion of Saudi Arabia and all Saudi citizens must be Muslims and, therefore, there can be no freedom of religion, no separation of Church and State and there are no guarantees of freedom of religion. In fact, Saudi Arabia prohibits the public practice of any religion other than Islam. The Saudi government does not permit its citizens to view this internet web sites primarily devoted to religious freedom and tolerance. The Christian cross, the Magen David (Star of David, the symbol of Judaism) or the symbol of any other religion is not permitted to be displayed in public. Only Muslim holy days are permitted to be celebrated. There is widespread discrimination against women. There is no tolerance for the LGBT community as evidenced by the punishment that can be inflicted, ranging from imprisonment, lashes, to execution. Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are greatly restricted: as is access to the internet and there can be no criticism of the government Saudi Arabia bans Trade Unions and political organizations..
The political, antisemitic, mean spirited, hypocritical and irresponsible political left has gone insane labeling the open, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, culturally diverse, democratic Israeli society an apartheid state while there is no comparable criticism of what is clearly the apartheid state of Saudi Arabia: Saudi Arabia is an undemocratic, monarchical dictatorship devoid of a written constitution and an elected legislature that is beholden to an extreme and murderous fundamentalist sect of Islam.
The inability of the political left to acknowledge its overt hypocrisy is an absolute condemnation of its basic philosophy and its actions based thereon. There is no real need on my part, other than recognizing their existence, to refer to the more traditional antisemites since, by their definition or ideology, anything a Jews does, except die, is unacceptable behavior.
The inability of the political left to discern differences, their herd mentality and their willingness to permit ideology to override evidence, science and reason is definitive evidence of the hate-filled animus the left evinces towards Israel and Jews. These are the reasons why their continuous criticism of Israel is nonsensical: it is rarely based on fact but, unfortunately, all too often based on a very selective presentation of information – not necessarily facts – and its outright distortions. Such hatred of Israel on the part of the political left by its self-proclaimed intellectuals easily can be explained by the intense smug arrogance of true believers in and adherents of an ignorant and false ideology. But, then again, one of the hallmarks of the modern political left is its inability to think rationally. After all, this is group that came up with the idiotic non-scientific concept that all scientific knowledge is relative. However, when a friend offered one of the proponents of this philosophy to come to the roof of a building so they could jump off to test the relativeness of the concept of gravity, the individual refused. Yet, the same individual still insists on teaching that scientific knowledge is relative. Once again, such inability to think rationally, is another manifestation of the deadly influence of a false ideology in society. And, unfortunately, to the detriment to the public at large, the political left exerts a deadly influence in society especially when it comes to Israel.
Brennan has also been quoted as having said: “Hizbullah is a very interesting organization,” that evolved from “purely a terrorist organization” to a militia and now to an organization that has members within the parliament and the cabinet. “There is certainly the elements of Hizbullah that are truly a concern to us, what they’re doing,” Of course what Brennan fails to say is that Hizbullah is a Lebanese-Iranian proxy terrorist group that continually calls for the destruction of Israel and has launched thousands of missiles into Israel civilian communities.
In his speech, Brennan referred to Jerusalem by its Arabic name, AL Quds. As far as I could tell, this was an overt indication of Obama’s attempts to dejudaize Jerusalem and perhaps even deny Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. Why use the name Al-Quds when the name Jerusalem is at least 3,000 years older than the arabic name and the entire world has always known this city as Jerusalem unless there is another agenda?. Is Obama, through Brennan, providing another signal to the Arab and Muslim worlds that he is amenable to help them sate their unquenchable hatred of Israel and Jews and fulfill their equally insatiable desire to destroy Israel?
Brennan seems to be holding Israel completely the blame for all that has and is going wrong in that part of the middle east while not holding the Palestinians accountable for anything, including their unrelenting terrorism and teaching of hate against Israel and the Jewish people.
Obama role in the eventual destruction of Israel also includes his efforts in changing the public’s favorable attitude towards Israel this can be best seen in his most egregious action when he outright lies about American soldiers losing their lives because of Israel; no American soldier has ever been sent by any American administration to defend Israel and, therefore, no American soldier has died from such a non-existent order.. All Israel has ever asked is that arms be made available to it so it can defend itself. The fact that Israel still exists is proof of its abilities to care for itself. What President Obama refused to acknowledge is that Israel took American arms and altered them with more advanced electronic technology to enhance their capabilities. Of course, he failed to inform the public that the successful Israeli technology was adopted by the US military and has helped save American lives. Ditto for the invaluable intelligence information the US obtains from the Mossad. None of this seems to matter to President Obama as he continues his war against Israel by falsely linking American national security interests to the inability of Israelis and Palestinians to make peace.
The media have been speculating about how President Obama is going to resolve the dilemma created by the Turkish/Israeli confrontation resulting from the sailing of the flotilla from Turkey and the very serious injury of an Israeli soldier and the unfortunate killing of several Turkish citizens. There is also the issue of the very vociferous, world-wide hypocritical condemnation of Israel. As a result of this incident there seems to be a fraying of the tripartite relationship amongst Turkey, Israel, and the United States. Turkey, a non-Arab state, is considered to be the one Muslim nation most favorable to Israel.
But is this falling apart between Turkey and Israel so surprising or was it predictable? As long as Turkey was a secular oriented state, relations with Israel were excellent. In the past several years, the Muslim clerics have gained greater influence, much to the chagrin of the secularists, and relations with Israel began to deteriorate and, thereafter, have been worsening. Thus, this latest incident was an inevitable result of Turkey’s religiously based shifting of its national interests. Also, if Turkey is going to realize its aspirations of being an independent regional power, it will have to impress the surrounding Muslim Arab states and the rest of the Muslim world by start distancing itself from Israel while demonstrating an aggressive stance toward Israel.
Indeed, Turkey’s prime minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and his Foreign Minister, used similar language as his Saudi Arabian neighbors by describing the flotilla incident as “state terrorism,”"piracy,” “banditry” and “barbarism.”
In view of the US’s relationship with Turkey, one has to question why the US did not use its influence with Turkey to have Turkey stop the flotilla and avoid any confrontation? Perhaps any influence the US had with the Turkish governments also waned pari passu the rise of the political influence of the Muslim clerics.
There is another explanation. The President must have known that the flotilla expedition was organized not by peace activists, as the media insisted on portraying them, but by the IHH, a Turkish group that has ties to Hamas, the terrorist group that controls Gaza. In view of President Obama’s changing America’s attitude towards Israel and the Arab and Muslim worlds, it would not be surprising to learn that the US, behind the scene, sanctioned the sailing of the flotilla. And, in light of John Brennan’s speech, this explanation takes on greater credence. If President Obama wanted, he could have stopped the flotilla weeks before it left or he could have prepared the world for what was to come.
Further, President Obama successfully convinced Hillary Rodham-Clinton to change her positions on Israel that she supported for eight years she served as senator from NY. This may not have been a difficult task since her true leftist beliefs about Israel the Mid East are more in line with that of President Obama and the far left than what she propounded for political expediency as senator. For example: during the 1980’sand 1990a, in her pre-senate days, Hillary Rodham-Clinton had an appalling anti-Israel record, In the 1980s, she served on the board of the New World Foundation, which funded the Palestine Liberation Organization. This support was forthcoming despite the fact that the PLO was officially considered to be a terrorist organization by the United States. And, I doubt if anyone will ever forget Hillary Rodham-Clinton kissing Soha Arafat, the wife of Yasser Arafat, the head of the PLO, while never demonstrating similar affection to any Israeli, man or woman, who espoused freedom from terrorism.
The world outrage against Israel was put into perspective by Thomas Friedman: “But I have a big problem when people get so agitated by Israel’s actions in Gaza but are unmoved by Syria’s involvement in the murder of the prime minister of Lebanon, by the Iranian regime’s killing of its own citizens demonstrating for the right to have their votes counted, by Muslim suicide bombers murdering nearly 100 Ahmadi Muslims in mosques in Pakistan on Friday and by pro-Hamas gunmen destroying a U.N.-sponsored summer camp in Gaza because it wouldn’t force Islamic fundamentalism down the throats of children.” Of course, to this list one could also add the thousands of missiles that Hamas rained down on Israeli civilians.
All the uproar against Israel seems not to take into consideration what was the reason for the blockade: to deny Hamas the weaponry and raw materials it needs to continue its rocket attacks in Israel, killing innocent civilians, actions to which the world, by its silence, sanctioned. The silence was broken only when Israel dared to respond. There is not a single nation in the world that would tolerate having missiles attack its civilian populations without some immediate retaliation. Only Israel is expected not just to tolerate these attacks but is expected to accept the blame for their necessity. Instead of Israel being the victim, the Arab and Muslim worlds supported by their antisemitic cohorts, especially those in the media, insist on portraying the Israelis as the perpetrators and the so-called “Palestinians” as the victims. Orwell’s 1984 (or is it Brave New World?) had become a reality.
Even Vice President Biden – on the Charlie Rose show – recognized, perhaps in an unguarded moment which would seem to differ from the official Obama stance, that Israel has an “absolute right” to defend its security interests. He admitted that It is legitimate for Israel to say that it does not know what is on those ships.
What was not said by the antisemitic left and the Arabists is that maritime blockades are legal, legitimate and effective military measures of self-defense. No civilian nor military ship is permitted to enter the blockaded area once the recognized criteria for imposing a blockade have been met, which the Israelis did. Therefore Israel behaved correctly in exerting its right under international law to enforce the blockade against the flotilla terrorists who explicitly expressed their intention of breaking it, especially after Israel sent warnings to the captain’s of the ships that it intends to enforce the blockade. Similarly, Israeli soldiers had every right to defend themselves when their attempt to board the lead ship peacefully were met with violence.
There is not a country in the world that would have behaved differently under similar circumstances. Notice what happened when the US blockaded Cuba in the 1960s and President Kennedy’s response to the Soviet Union’s desire to break it. Although not a maritime blockade, Egypt did seal its borders between it and Gaza and even built a wall to separate the two areas thereby essentially imposing a land embargo.
There are a number of questions that could be raised about the failure of the so called humanitarians to protest or take actions against a variety of human rights violations by Arab and other Muslim nations, that do not involve Israel, that supports the allegations that the they are only protesting Israel to satisfy their antisemitic appetites.
The fact that President Obama has not fully backed Israel in this situation and not have his minions point out all the flaws in the reasoning of the protestors and their antisemitic supporters, suggests that he wants to curry factor with the Arab and Muslim worlds, and like Turkey, has to demonstrate his animus to Israel by distancing himself from it.
How much clearer can President Obama make it that through his use of people like John Brennan, he does intend to dejudaize Jerusalem and deligitimize the state of Israel and, thereby work for the ultimate destruction.
Source: AlterNet.Org | By Florida Dynamo | June 7, 2010
Post a Comment