Oringally posted at Legal Insurrection

As the world government ship of fools drifts unmanned amid a sea of unparalleled global volatility, we, her passengers, behold – brewing on the horizon – an economic and foreign relations “perfect storm.” 

As so often is the case, the hurricane swirls around the Middle East. 

Historically, the president of the United States has captained the ship. He has, heretofore, been duly regarded “leader of the free world.”

Not now. Not with Gilligan reaching for the helm. 

Indeed, the current occupant of the Oval Office spends more time with his feet on JFK’s Resolute desk than he does leading from behind it.

But “leading from behind” he does. 

More commonly known as “following,” President Obama’s follow-the-leader strategy in the Middle East represents, in my view, either inherent weakness on his part, sympathy toward the Islamic cause or both. 

I suspect both.

Indeed, during his first term, Mr. Obama betrayed both weakness personified and sympathy toward the goals of Islamic fundamentalism with his ongoing embrace of the Muslim Brotherhood.

This extremist group, with Obama’s help, now controls much of the Arab world. It has sworn, in its own words, to “destroy” our “Western civilization from within … so that it is eliminated and God’s religion (Islam) is made victorious over all other religions.” 

Not surprisingly, today the Brotherhood rushes to the aid of both the terrorist group Hamas and Holocaust denier Mahmoud Abbas, head of the Palestinian Authority. This, as terrorists ramp-up decades-long rocket attacks and suicide bombings against innocent Israeli women and children. 

Nonetheless – and clearly stemming from a cynical political calculus – Mr. Obama persists in paying shallow lip service to support for Israel. All the while he continues to play footsie with the Muslim Brotherhood. 

Recall that, just last year, the president touted the “Arab Spring” – which any high school history buff could have predicted would devolve into the utter chaos it has – as “an extraordinary change taking place,” wherein, “Square by square, town by town, country by country, the [Muslim] people have risen up to demand their basic human rights.” (You know, like the Quran-given right for Muslim men to beat or kill women and homosexuals with impunity; or like the human right for both Iran and the Palestinian Authority to “wipe Israel from the face of the earth.”) 

Whether due to naiveté, foolishness or pure dishonesty, President Obama’s bungling of the Middle East crisis – let alone his unprecedented attacks on our constitutional freedoms stateside – has disqualified him to lead the free world. 

And so, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has stepped forward to answer the call. He has become de facto leader of the free world – chief defender of Western civilization.

As America’s light fades under the Obama regime, Israel has become – for now at least – “the shining city on the hill.”

With a nuclear Iran perhaps only months away, Western civilization needs defending now more than ever. Israel needs defending now more than ever. Consider these words from top Hamas cleric Muhsen Abu ‘Ita: “Annihilation of the Jews here in Palestine is one of the most splendid blessings for Palestine.” 

Thus, Israel defends herself. Israel defends the free world. 

To be sure, the worldwide Islamic juggernaut has become emboldened by the actions – by the inaction – of a sympathetic, do-nothing U.S. president. Muslim terrorists have, as the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) recently noted, “turned Gaza into a frontal base for Iran, terrorizing residents of Israel and forcing them to live under unbearable circumstances.” 

Yet, inexplicably, many in the West – people Vladimir Lenin might have called “useful idiots” (i.e., “progressives,” mainstream media and moderate American Muslims) – willfully suspend disbelief. They play directly into the blood-soaked hands of these terrorist cowards. 

Having time and again demonstrated a willingness to sacrifice their own innocent people (consider child suicide bombers), these monsters today both deliberately target Israeli neighborhoods with rockets and intentionally place their own military launch sites and terrorist headquarters next to mosques, playgrounds, factories and the like. 

This, as intended, has created a propagandist boon. Much of the world blames Israel when these human shields are tragically killed during pinpoint military strikes. Who needs missile defense when you have women and children to hide behind? 

To both the Israeli and the Arab victims of radical Islam, I say this: You are in our thoughts and our prayers. Our hearts break for you. We pray that God will cover and protect you during these dark days and nights. 

To Benjamin Netanyahu I pledge this: Mr. Prime Minister, Christian America thanks you for your bold leadership. We thank you for being the lone voice of freedom in the Middle East.

Sir, you, too, are in our thoughts and our prayers.

America stands with Israel.

We demand our president do the same.

I’ll take Capitals for $500, Alex.

The capitol of France: Paris. The capital of Russia: Moscow. Of Belarus… oh, that’s a tougher one. But it’s Minsk. Everyone knows and everyone agrees. The country gets to pick its capital.

I can’t choose another city to be the capital of Germany, even though they were a divided country for years. It is still the decision of the citizens of the country.

But what about Israel? The Jewish people have chosen Jerusalem as their capital. But the Palestinians (a terrorist group without a state) argue that Jerusalem is theirs. The United Nations, in its naive desire for smooth sailing, would like to see Jerusalem become an international city. But in 2008 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated that “Jerusalem belongs to the Jewish people and will remain under Israeli sovereignty for eternity.”

Candidate Obama, in 2008, seemed to be in agreement with Netanyahu:

But President Obama,wanting to be friends with all, choose to sit on the sidelines. In 2011, the administration was caught scrubbing all references of Jerusalem being part of Israel from its website.

It’s now 2012 and again Candidate Obama might have to answer this question. As he ponders it he should probably talk to Press Secretary Jay Carney, who did not appear comfortable being put on the spot. White House spokesman Jay Carney refused to directly say which city is the capital of Israel during a press briefing Thursday, saying only “our position has not changed.”

The election is just 100 days away. People who believe in the right of Israel to have and keep their capital should remember that this administration is not necessarily on their side. This election will be important for the USA but also for the country of the only democratic ally in the Mid East, Israel.

kudumomo (CC)

But beyond political maneuvering in Israel, there are other issues in the region to consider, at least to understand why this all could play out to the advantage of the Romney camp. If you couple Netanyahu’s desire to double-down on his current Palestinian policy with the fact that interest in the issue is apparently flagging in the Arab world, this could be yet another reason for the Romney camp to focus on Jewish voters here. As economic issues take the forefront for many in the Arab Spring nations, the question of an independent Palestinian nation is less important – a case of personal needs trumping ideology.

Back to Netanyahu, he knows it’s likely that Obama would focus on Palestine in a second term. It is foolish to assume that he would not consider reaching out to Jewish voters in the U.S. himself, albeit unofficially, and gently suggest that it would be better for Israel if Obama didn’t get a second term. And it would be foolish for the Romney camp to not point out these issues. But that requires focusing on issues, as opposed to fluff.

Apparently, the two heads-of-state moved to a private area after having been on the stage at the G20 conference. One or both of their wireless microphones were allegedly left on for almost three minutes.

The conversation is reported to have immediately started on the topic of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahou.

La conversation a ensuite dérivé sur Benyamin Nétanyahou, le Premier ministre israélien. Sûrs de ne pas être entendus, les deux présidents se sont lâchés. “Je ne peux plus le voir, c’est un menteur”, a lancé Sarkozy. “Tu en as marre de lui, mais moi, je dois traiter avec lui tous les jours !”, a rétorqué Obama..

Translated (my French being what it is):

The conversation next turned to Benyamin Netanyahu, Israel’s Prime Minister.  Thinking they would not be heard, the two presidents talked freely.  ”I can’t stand him, he is a liar”, began Sarkozy.  ”You think that’s tough, I have to deal with him every day!”, answered Obama..

Obama’s pushing-away of Israel is nothing new. His 1967 lines speech was the first obvious hint that he would not be taking sides with one of America’s most-trusted allies.

Sarkozy’s handling of Israel is not much better. In October, yNet published a story that revealed the French PM’s thoughts on Israel as a state:

“It is silly to talk about a Jewish state,” Sarkozy said while referring to the Israeli demand that the Palestinians recognize Israel as the Jewish state. “It would be like saying that this table is Catholic. There are two million Arabs in Israel.”

To be consistent, there are a large number of Arabs in France, perhaps we will soon hear that France is also no longer a French state.

There are reports that say that the press agreed to keep the comments private due to their secret nature making corroboration difficult. The last paragraph of the Arret Sur Images post does say that they received independent confirmation of the quotes and that the journalists did indeed agree to not report on them.

CDNews has also not yet been able to ascertain what comment or fact that Sarkozy feels Netanyahu falsified.

update: Reuters is confirming the report about the open-mic, comments and the agreement by representatives of the press to keep it quiet.

The conversation was not initially reported by the small group of journalists who overheard it because it was considered private and off-the-record. But the comments have since emerged on French websites and can be confirmed by Reuters.

Benjamin Netanyahu, of Israel gave an impassioned and reasonable speech which lasted 36 minutes.  He made sense and demonstrated to the crowd of closed minded ambassadors of the world that there ought not be a “Palestinian” state unless they were willing to pursue peace rather than Israel’s annihilation.

Rest assured the the congress of international fools ignored reason, demonstrated that Obama has no world stature, and gave the Abbas and is assassins and terrorist a nod of approval and a round of applause.

I opened as I did to assure that nobody mistakes where I stand on this issue.  But, let me offer some objective information for the three reasonable people that remain in the universe.

One of the four original tenants contained in the United Nations Charter states “To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion.”  This charter was adopted in the late 1040s.  It has been tucked in the back of the diplomat’s lockers under their dirty sweat socks for over fifty years.  It is stained, faded, folded and mutilated, but certainly not a guiding principle of that institution.

Under what description of the “Palestinian State” does Muslim controlled political interests possibly meet that objective of the UN.

First, the UN has caused more grief and damage in the Middle East with their silly resolutions regarding both Jews and and Muslim than any other entity on the planet or in history.  The UN has failed to “achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character” in the Middle East.

Second, there is no definition of “encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion” that would include the national character of an Islamic group.  They routinely discriminate against race.  They routinely discriminate against gender. They routinely discriminate against religion.

The question remains how does this assemblage of wise and fair-minded international consortium of diplomat reach such a conclusion as to recognize “Palestinians” as a group prepared to assist in the UN’s first objective “To maintain international peace and security?”  It is absolutely beyond the bounds of any level of reason.  Yet, on they blindly march into the oblivion of irrationality.

There are only two causes for such off the wall behavior, or even discussion; greed or fear.  Far too many nations acting out of greed for oil pander to practices which are diametrically opposed to their own principles.  They and their comrades not in quite such need of dead and decayed fossil fuels the wring their hand together in fear that the nomadic band of terrorist might jump out and say “boo”.

Well, there is shame to be had for any nation that caves in to threats of terrorism, including the Unite States of American and our elitist president.  On rare occasion such people will rise up and scream, usually within the haunted hall of the UN building. They shake their fists in the air. and then as pretended conquering heroes  send their young to die in half-hearted effort to tame the Middle East insanity.

None of these giants among men dare believe out loud that perhaps Israel has been right all along.  The “Palestinians” simply refuse to discuss peace, but only annihilation.  If only Confucius had been Muslim when he said “Before you embark on a journey of revenge, dig two graves.“  maybe the entire region would know peace.  But, rest assured it will not come through the United Nations.

Now, there is an essential question to ask.  Who can defined who the “Palestinian” people are.  The word phrase Palestinian Homeland was not even used until after the 1967 accords.  It is an absolute impossibility, even with the most expensive DNA analysis, to trace a single person on this planet back to an ancestry that pre-dates Israel in that region of the world.  Read that in capital letters.  IMPOSSIBLE!

Hence, what is the UN moving toward?  A monument to their collective cowardice and loss of purpose.

If the US wants to be part of that, which the present administration does despite the president’s shallow denials, than they should send all the diplomats home and turn the UN building into another mosque, because at present that is all it functions as now.

Tuesday, September 20, 2011 will prove to be a very busy and interesting day.  On that day, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will address the United Nations general assembly, followed soon after by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

Both men will outline the state of affairs between the two peoples who reside in a very contentious region.  Their perspectives, however, are very different, and in the end, only one of them is right.

Netanyahu will start out the day in an effort to defend Israeli policy and practice.  The reception, however, is likely to be very chilly, to say the least.  The U.N. General Assembly has been known for its blatant anti-Israel stance, so Netanyahu’s message is more of a matter of record than of sway.  He simply wants to get everything out there for the world to hear, even if it’ll all fall on deaf ears.

Abbas has different motives.  He is seeking a U.N. Resolution, preferably from the Security Council that declares, unilaterally, the existence of a State called Palestine.  He wants full U.N. membership and representation, and his goal is to force Israel’s hand by having the U.N. outline the borders.  The Palestinian Authority is intent on securing borders from prior to the 1967 war.  At least, that’s the border they want to start with.

Israel, however, has argued that those borders are indefensible and negotiations must be undertaken to choose different borders.  Israel also insists that Jerusalem not be re-divided and remain the capital of the Jewish State.  One other thing that Israel wants, however, is something that the Palestinians are unwilling to give:  a declaration that Israel as a Jewish State has a right to exist.

The P.A. won’t resume negotiations until Israel stops building settlements in the so-called occupied territories.  That, of course, is a straw man being used to further the Palestinians’ goal.  They’d prefer to have the world exert pressure on Israel through the United Nations by painting themselves as the good guys.

The P.A. is undertaking this move by saying they are just copying what the Israelis did in 1948.  An article ran in the Sydney Morning Herald on August 29^th in which Sonja Karkar distorted history and portrayed it as fact.  He said:

“Israel’s own unilateral move in declaring statehood after the UN’s intention to partition historic Palestine into a Jewish and an Arab state cannot be avoided. It underscores that Palestine was never a land without a people and that Israel’s existence was imposed on Palestinians, robbing them of their homes and land and destroying their proud and millenniums-old society.”

What Mr. Karkar fails to mention in his first sentence is that when Israel declared independence, they did so within the U.N. partitioned borders in good faith.  The Arab League opposed the plan.  They argued that the U.N. lacked the authority to divide the land and they viewed the division as being unfair.  On the day Israel declared her independence, the surrounding Arab States declared war with one purpose in mind:  the obliteration of Israel.  They wanted to push the Jewish infestation in Arab lands into the sea.

The Palestinians in the region at the start of the war were urged by the surrounding Arab States to leave their homes.  They were promised prime land, once Israel no longer existed.

Mr. Karkar’s reasoning again is faulty by his assumption that the “Palestinians” were actually a distinct society.  There, of course, have always been people there.  Those people come from all different sorts of backgrounds and cultures, but never once has there been a nation of Palestine that was run by the people who call themselves Palestinian.

The Arab confederation lost this war.  Several more military campaigns would be waged over the years and each time the result was the same:  Israel was victorious and the surrounding nations were clueless.

In 1949, the land that the U.N. had partitioned for the Arab State was firmly in the hands of the Jordanians and Egyptians.  It remained in their hands until 1967.

In those 18 years, no effort was made to establish a nation of Palestine according to the U.N. plan.  The only thing the Egyptians and Jordanians did was plan their next war.  In 1967, they lost the now so-called “Occupied Territories”.  Egypt also lost the entire Sinai Peninsula.

On the eastern side, Israel had taken the West Bank of the Jordan River along with East Jerusalem from Jordan and the Golan Heights from Syria.

Israel reunited Jerusalem, but under treaty with Jordan, left the temple mount under Jordanian control.

In 1979, Egypt and Israel signed a Peace agreement that formally ended 30 years of war.  As part of the deal, Israel gave Egypt back the Sinai Peninsula and wanted to give Egypt the Gaza Strip at the same time.  Egypt did not want Gaza.  They viewed the residents there as being problematic and preferred to leave the problem in Israel’s hands.  Once again, no effort was made by the Egyptians to secure that land, which they could have then turned around and ceded to the Palestinians.

Over the course of time, the Palestinian Liberation Organization evolved from a purely terrorist organization to a “respected” representative of the Palestinian interests.  Various accords have been signed and Israel has withdrawn from large portions of the land.  The exception would be the settlements that are being constructed in the West Bank.

This is where the racist aspect of the Palestinians comes clearly into view for those of us who want to look.  The Palestinians have no interest in having any Jews live in what will be their State and so they oppose, often violently, any Jewish settlements in those areas.  This sort of apartheid is condemned elsewhere, but for some reason, is not only accepted in this region, it’s promoted as the only way to have “peace”.

The truth is there won’t be peace in the region because there are two peoples in one region that both want the same land and refuse to live together and work together.

With the exception of re-dividing Jerusalem, Israel is more than willing to share the land with the Palestinians, side by side.  They just want to make sure their borders are wide enough to be defended.  The Palestinians, however, only view such an existence a stopgap to their goal:  A Palestinian State that extends from the Jordan to the Mediterranean Sea.

The United States wants to stop Abbas from making his demands, and Netanyahu wants to make sure the world knows why.  If both efforts fail to change the course the world is on, September 20^th could prove to be a very busy, perhaps even bloody, day, indeed.