Little known to most people is the failure and refusal of the Palestinians to come to any terms of peace with Israel. On top of that, their Arab “brothers” are more of an enemy than any other they have.
Submitted by: Veronica Coffin
By Alan Caruba
As the crisis in Ukraine unfolded, President Obama met with Benjamin Netanyahu, the Prime Minister of Israel while John Kerry, the Secretary of State, continued to flog Obama’s push to get Israel to grant the Palestinians a state of their own. At their meeting Netanyahu was far more concerned with Obama’s failure to stop Iran from making its own nuclear weapons. He repeated that Israel will do whatever it must to protect itself.
Within days, the Israeli Navy intercepted a ship. the Klos-C, that contained rockets with a range up to 160 kilometers. It had left Iran loaded with 181 M-302 rockets intended for use by Hamas, the terrorists who control the Gaza. It also had 400,000 rounds of 7.62 ammunition. Does anyone think that either Iran or the Palestinians want anything less than Israel’s destruction?
At some point, interest in the Middle East will reassert itself because, while Obama has been in office, it has become an increasing threat to ours and the world’s concern as a hotbed of Islamic fanaticism. Other than Israel, Jordan, and some Gulf states, the U.S. has few allies there.
What is rarely, if ever, reported in the mainstream media, the Palestinians have refused to engage in any serious discussions that would lead to the establishment of their own state since the founding of Israel in 1948.
They have preferred their “refugee” status that, at 66 years, makes them the oldest such group in the world. Since 1949 the United Nations has an entire agency, the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, that has been devoted to maintaining the camps in which many live.
Recently, in the spring edition of the Middle East Quarterly, Efraim Karsh had an extraordinary review of how their Arab “brothers” in Arab states have treated the so-called Palestinians. It’s worth recalling that “Palestine” was the name the Roman Emperor Hadrian used to try to replace “Israel”, but there never was such a nation. Karsh’s article was titled “The Palestinian’s Real Enemies” as it looked back over the years since Israel reemerged as a nation.
“For most of the twentieth century, inter-Arab politics,” writes Karsh, “were dominated by the doctrine of pan-Arabism, postulating the existence of ‘a single nation bound by the common ties of language, religion and history…behind the façade of a multiplicity of sovereign states;’ and no single issue dominated this doctrine more than the ‘Palestine question’ with anti-Zionism forming the main common denominator of pan-Arab solidarity and its most effective rallying cry…nothing has done more to expose the hollowness of pan-Arabism than its most celebrated cause.”
The Arabs distrust each other more than they are distrusted by the rest of the world. Arab states in the Middle East and in northern Africa are more united by the threat of being taken over by the Islamic fascists of al Qaeda and comparable groups. Both Egypt and the Saudis have banned the Muslim Brotherhood. Ironic, eh?
In his quest to become the caliph of those states, Emir Faisal ibn Hussein of Mecca, the hero of the “Great Arab Revolt” against the Ottoman Empire, together with his father and older brother Abdullah, placed Palestine on the pan-Arab agenda by falsely claiming that those living in what was regarded as southern Syria, had been promised a nation of their own, but in 1919 he signed an agreement with Chaim Weizman, the Zionist leader, supporting the 1917 Balfour Declaration on the establishment of a Jewish national homeland in Palestine. In 1920, he declared himself the king of Syria. After the French removed him, he laid claim to be Iraq’s ruler, a position he held until his death in 1933.
Over the decades “the Arab states continued to manipulate the Palestinian national cause to their own ends. Neither Egypt nor Jordan allowed Palestinian self-determination in the parts of Palestine they occupied during the 1948 war.” In April 1950, the territory now called the West Bank was formally annexed by the Hashemite kingdom of Jordan.
Hafez Assad who had seized control of Syria, controlling it from 1970 until his death in 2000, described Palestine in 1974 as “a basic part of southern Syria” but said that the Palestine Liberation Organization, appointed by the Arab League in October 1974 was “the sole legitimate representative of the Palestinian people” so long as it did not deviate from the destruction of Israel. It never did, nor has the Palestinian Authority that replaced it.
No matter where Palestinians lived throughout the Middle East, they were endlessly harassed by Arab nations. “As a result, the vast majority of Palestinians have remained stateless refugees with more than half living in abject poverty in twelve squalid and overcrowded camps.”
In one Arab nation after another, other than Jordan, they have been refused citizenship and barred from professions and other rights, but even Jordan drove them out when they attempted to seize control in 1970. They fled to Lebanon where they encountered a similar fate, but led by Hezbollah they have gained control there.
“Not only have the host Arab states marginalized and abused their Palestinian guests, but they have not shrunk from massacring them on a grand scale whenever this suited their needs.”
In the current Syrian civil war, “thousands of Palestinians have been killed…and tens of thousands have fled the country.”
So who are the enemies of the Palestinians? It is not the Israelis who have spent more than six decades trying to come to some arrangement with them to achieve peace and end their daily attacks.
As Obama and Kerry continue to threaten Israel with reprisals if they don’t make peace with a people who have never demonstrated any desire for anything other than Israel’s destruction, the isolation of the Palestinians is likely to continue for a very long time to come. It was imposed by the Arab states. If those states formally recognize Israel it could end, but that prospect is nowhere in sight.
The current U.S. policy toward Israel and the Palestinians ignores history. Their Arab “brothers” regard the Palestinians as a threat to their state’s sovereignty and events in Jordan, Lebanon, and elsewhere confirm that view.
© Alan Caruba, 2014
Submitted by: Veronica Coffin
Many of us could see that we hit the bottom of the conservative talent pool when George W. Bush had to be recruited from Texas just to avoid John McCain in 2000. Fourteen years later, conservatives are quite literally grasping at straws in the latest CPAC Presidential Straw Poll for 2016.
The results of the 2014 CPAC Straw Poll is shocking to say the least, highly disturbing at best. 27% of CPAC voters voted for a constitutionally ineligible candidate – 11% Sen. Ted Cruz – 7% former Senator Rick Santorum – 6% Sen. Marco Rubio – 2% Gov. Bobby Jindal and 1% Gov. Nikki Haley… none of whom are Natural Born Citizens of the United States under Article II requirements for the office.
The mere fact that CPAC placed these names on their ballot at all is very telling… On the same day CPAC and Drudge poll results were issued, Fox News reported that Ted Cruz is “not eligible” for high office, based upon a false definition of Natural Born Citizen which leaves Obama presumed eligible.
CPAC has been running a straw poll since 1976 and over the thirty-eight years since, the CPAC poll correctly identified only three GOP nominees, Reagan, George W. Bush and Mitt Romney, only two of whom became president. Not a great track record in terms of influence or predictions…and that may be a good thing.
Drudge Report ran their own straw poll at the same time and the results were equally troubling. Sen. Ted Cruz, who is a Natural Born Citizen of Cuba and Canada, not the United States, received support from 29% of Drudge readers. Libertarian freshman senator Rand Paul, the first US Senator to attempt to legislate by campaign data basing petitions, topped the Drudge results at 31% of the vote.
Like the CPAC poll, Drudge offered no less than three “constitutionally ineligible candidates” to voters and 33% of Drudge voters cast their ballot for one of those three ineligible candidates. Amazing!
Barack Hussein Obama is the first constitutionally ineligible candidate to win the most powerful political office on earth, not once but twice, thanks to an ever increasingly ignorant electorate. Five years later, the term Natural Born Citizen has been so bastardized by people on all sides of the political debate that the term literally has no meaning at all today. Partisanship trumps the Rule of Constitutional Law, even amongst so-called “constitutionalists.”
Of course, once words lose meaning, our Constitution and Bill of Rights lose all meaning as well.
Senators have never made good executive branch leaders in 227 years of U.S. history and despite the fact that congressional approval has been in the single digits for years now, a large percentage of “right-wing” voters seem to think that two freshman senators are the best we can do, even if one of them isn’t even eligible for the office.
To say the least, it is a very disturbing sign of things to come, an electorate in which no group has respect or reverence for the founding principles and values that once made America the greatest nation on earth.
Thomas Jefferson warned – “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” – and he further explained, “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate.”
What is America’s future when the majority of those who participate are too ignorant to participate?
The international left is in the closing hours of their total destruction of the Constitutional Republic. Not a single member of the U.S. Congress has lifted a finger to stop the destruction that nearly every American is able to see today. Communists no longer have to work in the shadows. Under more progressive sounding titles like liberal, they are able to drive America off a cliff without so much as a fight…
And those who pretend to resist, now participate in the same set of evils as their alleged opponents, advancing ineligible candidates, violating more than 300 million legal American citizens in favor of 20 million illegal invaders, authorizing debt levels that no nation can survive, and sitting on their hands as anti-American leftists seize control of nearly every private industry and asset in America.
The salvation will come from CPAC, who is promoting a couple freshman senators with pretty words and an otherwise empty résumé, one of which is not even eligible for office? The salvation will come from Drudge readers doing the same?
God help us if these groups are to be the beacon of truth, justice and the American way…. They are just as corrupt as the corrupt politicians in D.C. that they claim to oppose.
Half of our nation’s eligible voters don’t even bother to vote and the other half are in a race to the bottom of the political cesspool, both totally discarding the Constitution and Bill of Rights as if they no longer apply.
In 2008, many Tea Party folks were so focused on disqualifying John McCain, who is a Natural Born Citizen of the United States, that they left the door wide open for an anti-American communist from Kenya to seize the White House.
McCain became the GOP nominee with 1575 primary delegates, Huckabee receiving 278, Romney 271 and Ron Paul 14. CPAC had chosen Mitt Romney in the 2008 straw poll. McCain was below the bottom of the talent pool… the pool was drained empty in 2000.
In 2012, CPAC chose Mitt Romney again and Romney became the nominee with 1462 GOP delegates, Santorum receiving 234, Ron Paul 154 and Gingrich 137 delegates. The GOP was more divided than ever and when conservative evangelicals and Ron Paul libertarians refused to vote for “the Mormon” in the general election, America’s most anti-American unconstitutional White House resident was re-elected with at least 49% of the nation opposed.
All of this spells serious trouble for the 2016 presidential election cycle. If Hillary Clinton decided to run, she will essentially run unopposed for the DNC nomination. The Democratic Socialists will once again be united in their assault on America…
Meanwhile, it looks like the deep divisions in the so-called resistance or opposition party, the GOP, run deeper than ever.
If ineligible candidates like Cruz, Rubio or Santorum somehow win the nomination, they will be obliterated in the general election and GOP voters will deserve another national spanking.
If freshman libertarian legislators with no record of accomplishment like Rand Paul, somehow become the GOP nominee, the RNC will lose by historic margins and the Republican Party will cease to exist beyond 2016.
Now, before libertarians and unconstitutional “constitutionalists” write to attack what I am saying here, realize that what I said in 2006, 2008, 2010 and 2012 was dead on the mark. I said that the right was in self-destruct mode and they were. I said that the so-called “right” was so internally divided that they were easy prey for the Marxist left.
I said that 2008 was very likely to be the “point of no return” for America, wherein 51-49 became 49-51 for the foreseeable future, at least several generations, if not forever. I was right on all predictions…at a time when I prayed every day that I was wrong!
Today, more than ever before, the political right is poised to commit national suicide, driving the final nail in the coffin of a once great nation. Sadly, the political right now shares a condition once reserved only for the political left… facts don’t matter when they don’t suit your agenda.
As a result, the right is dooming itself to failure, and in doing so, they are dooming the nation to total collapse. Do I have to be proven right again for people to listen?
JB WilliamsFollow VeronicaCoffin
David Jolly defeats Alex Sink in Florida 13th
With 100 percent of precincts reporting, Jolly beat Sink 48.5 percent to 46.6 percent, according to The Associated Press.
Both Democrats and the GOP plowed millions of dollars into the swing district race in hopes of an election year boost. The results appeared to vindicate the strategy of the GOP, which focused its attacks on linking Sink to Obamacare and managed to win with an untested candidate who had frustrated many in the national party.
Sink was “ultimately brought down because of her unwavering support for Obamacare, and that should be a loud warning for other Democrats running coast to coast,” National Republican Congressional Committee Chairman Greg Walden said in a statement.
Democrats countered that Sink, the party’s 2010 gubernatorial candidate and Florida’s former chief financial officer, had done fairly well considering the environment, and noted that another vote for the seat is just a few months away.
“Alex put this district in play despite Republicans spending $5 million against her, and she came closer to victory in a historically Republican district than any Democrat has in decades,” Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee Chairman Steve Israel said in a statement. “Democrats will fight for FL-13 in the midterm, when the electorate is far less heavily tilted toward Republicans.”
Jolly, a former Washington lobbyist, will succeed GOP Rep. Bill Young, who passed away in October after spending more than four decades in the House. During his long tenure Young earned a reputation as a powerful appropriator, using his perch to deliver federal dollars to the defense community and to his district.
“This has been a remarkable journey, not just for me, for our entire Pinellas County community,” the 41-year-old Jolly said at his victory party, according to the Tampa Bay Times. “I am honored and am humbled to have received the support.”
Both parties bet big on the race. National Republican groups — hoping to exploit a political environment that’s tilting in their favor — combined to spend nearly $5 million, much of it on tying Sink to the unpopular Affordable Care Act and painting her as a steadfast ally of President Barack Obama. Democrats, meanwhile, poured in nearly $4 million, much of it on portraying Jolly as a cold-hearted opponent of entitlement programs and abortion rights.
The spending by the outside groups helped make the race one of the most expensive congressional battles in recent memory.
For Democrats, the stakes were particularly high. The party is facing a daunting, 17-seat climb to the House majority, and its outlook for the midterm election is gloomy. A number of veteran Democratic House members have announced their retirements in recent weeks, choosing to forgo what would likely be another two years in the minority.
Democrats had hoped that defeating Jolly would show that they could beat the GOP’s anti-Obamacare offensive. Sink had embraced the national Democratic Party’s “fix it, don’t repeal it” mantra, which candidates across the country are expected to adopt this year.
Underscoring the importance Democrats had placed on the contest, former President Bill Clinton last week recorded a robocall urging voters to support Sink.
The race’s landscape, however, was a challenging one for Democrats. The district, which is made up almost exclusively of white voters and has a slight GOP registration advantage, has long tilted conservative. And many of the voters there have fond recollections of Young, whom Jolly once worked for.
Sink’s campaign had hoped that she could eke out a victory by turning out the Democratic base, capturing a solid majority of independent voters, and peeling off some Republican support.
And Sink, 65, made a point of trying to woo independents and Republicans. In her final TV advertisement of the campaign, Sink said: “We’ve got big challenges, and we need someone who can work across the aisle to take them on … Bringing Republicans and Democrats together — that’s what I’ve always done. And that’s what I’ll do in Congress.”
Jolly, meanwhile, spent much of the race casting himself as a solid conservative, hammering home his opposition to Obamacare and tough-on-immigration views. Jolly allies believed that if they could limit Republican defections and take a chunk of independents, they could win.
Sink, a well-known figure in Florida politics, began the race as the favorite. She collected piles of cash from donors spread across the country, and she glided to her party’s nomination unopposed in the primary. Jolly, an untested candidate, emerged from the GOP primary practically broke.
But national GOP groups soon came to Jolly’s rescue, filling the TV airwaves with commercials blasting Sink. Democratic organizations hit back, airing spots highlighting everything from his lobbyist background to his views on entitlement programs.
As Sink conceded Tuesday night — “It’s disappointing,” she said — some of her supporters shouted “November! November!” according to the Tampa Bay Times. The Democrat did not, however, say if she would run again for the seat in this year’s general election, the newspaper reported.
Even as they plowed cash into the race, national Republicans worried about Jolly. In the week before the election, a number of GOP operatives described to POLITICO a chaotic, disjointed campaign that struggled to raise money and had staff located in the state capitol, hundreds of miles away from where the race was being held.
After Jolly was declared the victor, Walden, the NRCC chairman, praised him and his vision of “how to grow the economy, create jobs and deliver quality healthcare” for the families in the district.
“David will be a dedicated and thoughtful representative for them in Congress,” he said.
Source: PoliticoFollow VeronicaCoffin
Ayatollahs, Communists in China and Islamists in Turkey are carefully following the developments around Ukraine. They want to see what actions the West will take next, in order to make their own conclusions.
Submitted by: Veronica Coffin
The West has left the forefront of history which is repeating itself in force and with dispatch throughout Eurasia.
While condemning the actions of Russia in Crimea, John Kerry said that the time of empires is long gone; we live in the “21st century, and not in the 19th century”. After speaking with Putin, Angela Merkel told him that he had lost touch with reality and that he lives “in another dimension”.
In my opinion the time of empires has not passed and Putin is in full harmony with reality.
The United States, and with their assistance a significant part of Europe have created an isolated civilization: extremely successful and advanced, but isolated.
Geography played a great role because the U.S. and Britain are island states and mainland Europe is a peninsula. From a cultural stand point, this civilization has been based on ancient models of Greek democracy and Roman law; ethnically – on a relatively homogeneous population in a very limited space.
For millennia the giant Eurasia had existed in a completely different position that has never changed.
Mircea Eliade wrote with bitterness that his people, Romanians, like other Balkan peoples consistently lived in fear of the “The Horror of History”. It’s difficult to create and develop sustainable forms of democracy when you live in perpetual state of hordes, intrusions and tyrannies. Meanwhile, leading Eurasian powers – Russia, China, Turkey and Iran – were formed in exactly such an ominous environment: endless open borders, limitless vastness, mixed, diverse and often hostile to each other and its governments population dispersed over an infinite space.
Only through harsh centralized power was it possible to maintain such population, these areas and these boundaries. This was a natural prerequisite for creation of the empires.
Every Eurasian state – from Persian’s Achaemenids and ancient China (Tianxia) to Ottomans and Tsarist Russia to the Soviet Union, Communist China and Islamic republic of Iran – desired to expand its boundaries to resist its rivals and hostile, spontaneously emerging entities (such the Mongols, The Mughal Empire, the state of Tamerlane), to keep rebellious population and augment the resources.
In the 19th-20th centuries these common threats were supplemented by the expansion of the West: The British Empire and the United States. No one, not even modern powers, had forgotten the “surprises”, in the face of nomads or Islamist gangs, by constantly bustling steppe spreading from the Caspian Sea to Mongolia.
The ruling power could not afford to discuss issues of law and justice in a state of permanent external hazards, especially when a significant part of population looked forward to enemy invasion. Any resistance had to be crushed by an iron fist and troops mobilized as promptly and as quickly as possible to launch an attack on the enemy on his own territory. Such a tactic, with different degrees of success, was used equally by Sassanids and Sultans after the Ottoman defeat at the Battle of Ankara; the empire of the Great Ming in China and Shahanshah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi after the invasion of Iran during World War II by Soviet and British forces; Stalin, Chinese Communists and now Putin.
Democracy in such circumstances was not just impossible – it was fatal.
It was perfectly clear to Montesquieu when he wrote that democratic societies are possible only in relatively small isolated ethnic homogeneous communities that existed in Europe, and utterly impossible and implausible in vast spaces of the continent with restless masses and heterogeneous populations.
Modern passionate supporters of democracy have completely forgotten this although the situation has not changed a bit. Russia, China, Turkey and Iran are huge conglomerates with diverse populations, bordering with other aggressive and powerful nations. As has occurred many times before – lightly loosened reins would cause a state to collapse: during the unrest in Iran in the late 18th century; in Turkey in the early 20th century; in China in the era of the Three Kingdoms (AD 220–280), during the Boxer Uprising and other periods of unrest in the late 19th – early 20th century; in the course of the Russian Provisional Government in 1917 and after the dismantling of the USSR.
Rigid ruling demanded clear game rules. In order to survive, a full submission of peoples of empires to the regime was required – otherwise, a catastrophe would incur upon them similar to the one happened to the Armenians and Assyrians in Turkey, Chechens, Circassians and Tatars in Russia.
Small independent entities immediately become the object of confrontation: obviously, not being a part of one Empire, they automatically become part of another and subsequently a place of arms for further offenses. This happened with the Kurds, occupied by the Turks, Iran and Iraq; with Tibet, which lies on the border of India and China; with Caucasus, which divide the Ottoman and Russian empires; with South Azerbaijan, which occupied by Russians, Turks, Soviet Union and eventually by Iran in 1946, and with Armenia.
This is exactly what’s happening now with Ukraine and especially the Crimea peninsula with a massive Russian population and as a strategically important base for Russia’s naval fleet in Sevastopol which Russia wouldn’t give up to anyone – neither NATO, nor Turkey. A land without an owner is doomed to become an enemy outpost and a threat to the Empire.
These principles were, are, and will always be eternal for mainland Eurasia. This is why, first of all, there will never be strong liberal democracy, similar to the island civilizations, and secondly, fighting for territory will never stop. It is the very essence of survival, and not a whim of Putin, the Chinese Communists, the actual Turkish rulers (no matter, army or Islamist) or the Iranian regime, either Shah or ayatollahs.
The natural aspiration of Eurasian empires for expansion can only be restrained vigorously. West fears any serious interference; eternal mechanisms are at work, as in nature, with full force, and any moralizing by Obama, Kerry, Merkel and Cameron becomes a reason for mockery in Kremlin, Beijing and Teheran.
Ayatollahs, Communists in China and Islamists in Turkey are carefully following the developments around Ukraine. They want to see what actions the West will take next, in order to make their own conclusions. They have all the reasons to believe that the West would limit itself by verbal reprimand.
The West has voluntarily left the stage of History. So it is not surprising that history returns bringing horror to world.Follow VeronicaCoffin