The Jewish community that contributes to the UJA is being poorly served by New York's Jewish Week (JW). It needs an alternative newspaper. If JW were an evenly balanced paper, that probably wouldn't be necessary. But, it's not. The UJA needs to support an alternative newspaper -- not abandon JW but rather to provide another option for its contributors.
This idea is, for me, not a new one. But the JW issue of January 13, 2017 brought it to a head. Here we find two items. First is the article by Gary Rosenblatt, editor and publisher, titled "Pray For The President? A Divine Dilemma." Clearly this article is based on the presumption that -- now that Trump has become our president -- Jews are torn between praying for our head of state and choosing not to pray for Trump. Rosenblatt then offers information that will help the Jewish community resolve this dilemma.
We now see where Rosenblatt and, by extension, JW, is coming from. The idea that the Jewish community is facing a dilemma is sheer arrogance. Sure, for some Jews, especially those who abhor Trump, they may well find themselves with a dilemma. But, that's hardly the feeling in all corners of the Jewish community. Many contributors to the UJA have been active supporters of Trump.
Regrettably, JW serves as a mouthpiece for only one segment of the Jewish community and, for me, that's a problem.
In this same issue of JW, we find a letter to the editor by Edith Everett. (Confession: I'm jealous of Ms. Everett. As a member of the board of JW, she is unlikely to have any of her letters-to-the editor get rejected.) Since she's on the board of JW, it can be safely assumed that her views reflect the views of JW; namely, that Israelis must decide if they want to be Jewish or democratic. They can retain their Jewishness only if they opt for a two state solution. A single state implies occupation and that in turn defines a nation lacking in democratic values. Nonsense!
Why is it assumed that there must be two equal states, one Jewish and one Palestinian? By "equal," I am speaking of two states with the same air rights, the same right to militarize, the same right to make agreements with other nations, including nations hostile to Israel, the same rights to territory . . . . If Israel is to survive and have peace and tend to its affairs this can not be.
There are other miniature states such as Monaco, Liechtenstein, and Singapore. The Palestinians currently administer Area A (Oslo Agreement). That, plus a few more square miles from Area B, should be quite adequate. Would they accept that? Of course not. But, as it happens, there's no deal acceptable to Israel that the Palestinians would also accept. We know this, not through hypothetical reasoning, but by how they've responded to earlier, and to far more generous, offers. Also instructive was the response by the people of Gaza when Israel gave them absolutely everything.
My purpose in setting forth this last proposition is not to argue here for its validity, but to point out that the ways forward for Israel are multiple. It's not simply this way or that way, as apparently one member of the JW board believes. JW's views in this matter narrow considerably Israel's options.
If Jews don't like Fox News they can go to MSNBC and vice versa. Clearly, Jews also need an alternative to JW.
Friday, January 20, 2017
Friday, January 6, 2017
Russia, Obama's Second Booby Trap
The first booby trap that Obama -- America's Hamlet, now become Road Runner -- laid out was engineering the UN vote against Israel. The most serious self-injury that that maneuver inflicted on Obama was when it became clear through Egyptian sources, that Obama not only failed to veto the UN resolution against Israel, but that he had actually coordinated the entire situation with New Zealand and the other countries. But, the injury he suffered for his perfidious act was minor. He knew he could count on the American press to bury the story.
His second booby trap was expelling Russian diplomats from America because of Russia's hacking of the Democratic National Committee and for gaining access to some of America's voting machines. Let's be clear, the DNC, for all practical purposes, invited the Russian hackers. It wasn't the Russians that told Hillary to put a private, non-secure server, in her basement. She had been our Secretary of State and presumably was well aware of the need to safeguard her emails as well as those of the DNC.
The hacking of our voting machines is indeed a serious matter, but our intelligence organizations have determined that while information may well have been taken, no attempt was made to manipulate the voting results. That has now given the U.S. clear warning that anything electronic, including our voting machines must be properly secured.
So what made this an Obama booby trap? In the covert warfare that never ends, between the U.S. and nations that would do us harm, much is never made public. And, for good reason: namely, it's to deny to our enemies information as to our ability know what they're doing and to covertly counter their maneuvers. If they do something to us that we consider wrong, unfair and inappropriate, we have a responsibility to our citizens that we take appropriate countermeasures. The decision, as to what measures are most appropriate, is an executive decision. It is a decision for the president.
Before all the facts were nailed down, Obama decided to slap Russia in the face. But to what end? Russia's done far worse to America's interests and Obama's been found to stand around being entirely ineffectual. Indeed, in matters of foreign policy, Obama has been a disaster. So why do we now find him coming out like gangbusters?
To understand that, we've got to understand that it's all about Trump, not Russia. The Chinese, and no doubt others, have acted just as aggressively against America's interests as the Russians. And, what have we done? Nothing -- at least not publicly. So, why now, has Obama decided to publicly slap Russia? It's to put Trump in a difficult position -- regardless as to whether this helps our country pursue its interests or not. It denies Trump the maneuverability to deal with Russia in a way that best furthers the interests of America.
As a booby trap, or a wrench tossed into the body politic, it's worked quite well for Obama. It's gotten the press to focus its attention on whether Trump has confidence in our security organization; whether he trusts the CIA and the FBI and other security departments within our government. Of course, he does. But, if he's to serve the best interest of America, Trump has got to realize that not only is America watching, but so is Russia. If the adversary weren't Russia, Trump could say honestly and with full voice, of course our security agencies are correct. Of course, our adversary must pay. But, has Obama chosen the best strategy for making Russia pay? And, how will we deal with Russia when future problems unfold as surely they will. And, then there's China, a more formidable enemy, as I see it. China's now standing on the sideline laughing as it watches America's political show.
The proper course of action would have been for Obama to step aside and leave the Russian problem to the President-Elect. But that's not Obama's style. He's a man that will do anything to screw Trump; America's interest be damned. Regrettably, he's got useful idiots like McCain and Graham helping him.
His second booby trap was expelling Russian diplomats from America because of Russia's hacking of the Democratic National Committee and for gaining access to some of America's voting machines. Let's be clear, the DNC, for all practical purposes, invited the Russian hackers. It wasn't the Russians that told Hillary to put a private, non-secure server, in her basement. She had been our Secretary of State and presumably was well aware of the need to safeguard her emails as well as those of the DNC.
The hacking of our voting machines is indeed a serious matter, but our intelligence organizations have determined that while information may well have been taken, no attempt was made to manipulate the voting results. That has now given the U.S. clear warning that anything electronic, including our voting machines must be properly secured.
So what made this an Obama booby trap? In the covert warfare that never ends, between the U.S. and nations that would do us harm, much is never made public. And, for good reason: namely, it's to deny to our enemies information as to our ability know what they're doing and to covertly counter their maneuvers. If they do something to us that we consider wrong, unfair and inappropriate, we have a responsibility to our citizens that we take appropriate countermeasures. The decision, as to what measures are most appropriate, is an executive decision. It is a decision for the president.
Before all the facts were nailed down, Obama decided to slap Russia in the face. But to what end? Russia's done far worse to America's interests and Obama's been found to stand around being entirely ineffectual. Indeed, in matters of foreign policy, Obama has been a disaster. So why do we now find him coming out like gangbusters?
To understand that, we've got to understand that it's all about Trump, not Russia. The Chinese, and no doubt others, have acted just as aggressively against America's interests as the Russians. And, what have we done? Nothing -- at least not publicly. So, why now, has Obama decided to publicly slap Russia? It's to put Trump in a difficult position -- regardless as to whether this helps our country pursue its interests or not. It denies Trump the maneuverability to deal with Russia in a way that best furthers the interests of America.
As a booby trap, or a wrench tossed into the body politic, it's worked quite well for Obama. It's gotten the press to focus its attention on whether Trump has confidence in our security organization; whether he trusts the CIA and the FBI and other security departments within our government. Of course, he does. But, if he's to serve the best interest of America, Trump has got to realize that not only is America watching, but so is Russia. If the adversary weren't Russia, Trump could say honestly and with full voice, of course our security agencies are correct. Of course, our adversary must pay. But, has Obama chosen the best strategy for making Russia pay? And, how will we deal with Russia when future problems unfold as surely they will. And, then there's China, a more formidable enemy, as I see it. China's now standing on the sideline laughing as it watches America's political show.
The proper course of action would have been for Obama to step aside and leave the Russian problem to the President-Elect. But that's not Obama's style. He's a man that will do anything to screw Trump; America's interest be damned. Regrettably, he's got useful idiots like McCain and Graham helping him.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)