The Arizona Immigration Debate: Political Domination is Now the Ends not the Means

I was in CT this weekend and got into a brief conversation with a good friend and president of my synagogue. He was asking why there was no well balanced and informative article dealing with the immigration debate.

Sherrif Joe Arpaio the quintessential Western lawman and leading advocate of Arizona's bill to suppress illegal immigration (II), like many honest hardworking and not racist citizens argue that illegal immigration is overtaxing our states resources. Healthcare, which II’s get free when they show up in emergency rooms. Education costs for II children, law enforcement and incarceration costs, as 17% of II’s are second time offenders (all II have already broken the law, when they entered illegally), and the fact that we don’t know who is coming into the country, terrorists etc. Let us not forget the most questionable refrain made famous by South Park “they took are jooobs”.

The bill is opposed by a coalition of organizations and people. Businessman like Bloomberg argue that we need these immigrants to do the work Americans wont, i.e. American companies need a source of cheap un-union labor, as evident by the increasing outsourcing of jobs that keep some companies internationally competitive. The ACLU, which opposes the bill because they claim it leads to racial profiling. The Justice Department, under Eric Holder, because its good politics. The Hispanic community is the biggest minority population in the states, and is a major supporter of the Democratic party, specifically because of the party policies like this one.

Everyone agrees that the ideal immigrant is one that gains citizenship, like my great-grandfathers father did, legally. Furthermore most agree that this country thrives on absorbing the full spectrum of humanity, and we benefit from providing the opportunity for every community to elevate and contribute their unique talents. The obvious solution then, and the one most agree with is comprehensive immigration reform.

Unfortunately they don’t agree about how to deal with the 20 million II’s that are already here. That is the crux of the debate. Arizona has responded with their own measures, deport them like FDR did after WWII to provide returning soldiers with jobs. The pro-illegal immigration community offers different reasons why the illegal’s shouldn’t be deported. We need them, it would require racial profiling, they equal votes for a beleaguered Democratic party. So what the pro-illegal immigrants propose is amnesty with a fine. The anti-illegal immigrants respond that amnesty, like the immigration reform and control act of 1986, will result in further incentive for border infiltration and ultimately the same problem we are dealing with now, a massive undocumented population being accused of causing too many problems.

Frankly I believe that the issue revolves around one legitimate superficial issue, and another more insidious illegitimate issue.

The superficial legitimate issue is that many businesses (especially agriculture) require cheap labor to survive/remain profitable in lieu of closing or moving their business overseas. At the same time the 1986 immigration law also referenced this legitimate need, thus seasonal workers who had worked for a number of seasons were given a path to citizenship and the bill also allowed subcontracting which basically allowed employers to hire illegal’s without responsibility for their illegal status. Either way these loopholes did not achieve its intent of a narrow exception, rather it contributed to the overall disregard of immigration reform and ultimately contributed to the situation we are in now.

From this perspective it makes sense that states should do what they can until the federal government gets its act together. Especially states like Arizona ,which is absorbing more than its share of illegal immigration. We live in a Democracy and state governments have an obligation to achieve optimal results for their residents. Arizona’s electorate voted for their bill, it is legal. AG Holder and the ACLU, opposed the bill referencing the 14th amendment which imposes the bill of rights of states (Dual Process clause), and the Equal Protection Clause which requires states to offer equal protection to all people in their jurisdiction. They claim that Arizona, by virtue of the requirement for everyone to carry documents and for officers of the law to ask for them, will violate the equal protection clause because they will racially profile i.e. not all people will be treated equally.

Yet the 14th amendment, as stated in the Citizenship Clause, expressly states that only citizens are protected under the 14th amendment.
It would seem then that Arizona is acting legally and justifiably. So why the tremendous opposition?

This leads us to the insidious illegitimate issue, votes. Yes votes!

The pro-illegal immigrant coalition is basically the Democratic party. They do not really care about whether illegal’s are deported from as Arizona on the contrary, this country will be better off if we have strong borders, and suppressed illegal immigration. Yet this is an opportunity for the Democrats to firmly establish themselves as the party of the Hispanics. Just as they effectively gained and solidified the black vote by being the party of the new deal and JFK’s civil rights bill. By coming down hard on those “racist white Republican Arizona folk” the Democrats, led by Obama and AG Holder can affirm and galvanize the Hispanic vote for the upcoming election and add to the Democratic coalition of next half century. The Republican establishment is aware of the political game and sees this as an opportunity to harness their constituency for the upcoming election, by opposing illegal immigration and supporting Arizona’s efforts.

Meanwhile Arizona, California, and many other states are drowning in a sea of illegal immigrants and the unique financial/social burden that they represent. Then again political domination of America has for some times become more an ends then a means.

Raphael I hope this adds some perspective.

America Will Gain Nothing By Linking Terror with Islam

A recent Washington Post article "Obama at Odds with Petraeus Doctrine on Islam" completely misses the opportunity to shed light on an important question. Should America tie Islam to the war on terror? The essay starts auspiciously enough with an overview of Obama's policy on this matter, referencing secretary Brennan's publicized “new” approach to the war on terror. This revamped policy included removing all references to Islam, because America doesn’t want to legitimize the perception that America is fighting a war with Islam. It also replaced the war on terror with the war on Al-Qaeda. This contradicts elements of a manual co-authored by Patraeus in 2006 which states emphatically that Islam is related to the war.

Instead of the author focusing on presenting a perspective on the underlying question, he unabashedly relished the opportunity to reveal yet another rift between the administration and the military. This “exposé” follows General McCrystal's recent resignation after his criticism of the administration was published in Rollingstone magazine. But what about the question: Should America link the war on terror with Islam?

The Bush era defense department, under Donald Rumsfeld and then Robert Gates, argued that ignoring the obvious roots of Al-Qaeda extremist ideology negatively affected the war effort. Bush did make it clear on a number of occasions that the war was not on the totality of Islam but rather on an aberrant extremist strand that attacked America. However they never really defended this position, nor did they, openly, challenge the right-wing conservatives in their own party who propagated the claim that the war on terror was actually a war between Islam and the Judeo-Christian West. The electorate did not miss this and Obama’s campaign accentuated the negative by ignoring Bush’s nuanced position while painting the entire Republican party with the brush of the conservative view. Obama claimed that we needed to engage with the Muslim world, not alienate them by tying Islam to terror or the war as Bush did (though he didn’t).

The current administration’s approach is not without merit. For one thing if America's electorate missed the nuance in the Republicans position it’s a sure thing that Muslim-majority countries did as well. Obama removed all ambiguity, that could otherwise be construed by extremist elements in the Muslim world as evidence that America was waging a war on Islam. Unlike Bush’s more nuanced position, Obama emphatically declared America’s war is no way related to Islam. Obama supports this position by asserting that there is no advantage to referencing the connection, even if there is one.

Indeed this is the crux of the issue, both Obama and Bush agree. Most Muslims do not adhere to extremist Islam doctrine to the extent of committing/condoning terror. However for Obama America gains nothing by referencing Islam. Conversely, Bush argued that so long as terror is perpetrated by Muslims the war can be construed as relating to Islam and must be acknowledged as such.
To what ends? To force the moderates to take a side? To punish the various Muslim communities for not preventing the terror that emanates from it? To galvanize the American public against a common foe? For the sake of truth?

Or to point out that the moderate Muslim world has failed in suppressing the extremists, and to some extent they are directly responsible (please see blog post “http://factoru.blogspot.com/2010/03/roots-of-modern-terrorism.html), for allowing their religion to be hijacked. In other words just as Bush’s position was ambiguous the moderate Muslims position is opaque. Thus even if the moderate Muslim (as Bush tried at the other end) attempts to be nuanced, and publicly declares terror is contrary to Islam, people, ignorant or otherwise, will make a connection because Muslims are still perpetrating terror. But the Bush policy of motivating moderate-Muslims to speak, by supporting a nuanced position, has not worked. Instead it has been used as ammunition in this country and in Muslim-majority countries against American policy.

Put otherwise Obama is right. Not because the terror is not linked to Islam, but because America will gain nothing by linking terror to Islam.

Will the BP "Deluge" Bring Down Obama?

CNN's Anderson Cooper, in a clip posted on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXsmLMV1CrM), is severely critical of the unprecedented media censorship of the BP disaster. The current guidelines are that no journalists, civilians, and/or relief efforts can come within 65 feet of the disaster area, ostensibly for security/protection! Meanwhile reports continue to anonymously come out, despite counterclaims, that BP is firing any employee who talks about the spill. There seems to be a complete media blackout during the epic saga of the undisputed, greatest (i.e. excluding global warming), man-made environmental disaster in history.

Ok so the media is being blocked by the most transparent government in America's history. Will that in itself bring down Obama? Probably not. Indeed the media blackout is more likely a woefully transparent attempt to affect the results of the upcoming mid-term elections. Elections that will likely put the Republicans back in power in the house and senate.

Yet does the media blackout really help suppress political criticism of the party in power? Or is it that the alternative, close scrutiny of gross incompetence coupled with pictures of horrifying environmental destruction, trumps blatant first amendment criticism from the GOP?

Either way this event will have catastrophic ramifications for the environment and Obama’s short political career.

Is it Obama’s fault? No. But neither was Katrina Bush's fault. The comparisons stop there.

Katrina was a natural disaster compounded by initial ineptitude while the BP “deluge” was a man made catastrophe exacerbated by sustained incompetence, and a company that was praised by Obama. Furthermore, while Katrina affected a population that has not voted for Bush's party since Roosevelt, the BP disaster actually pits Obama against a major component of his constituency, environmentalist and big oil/cooperation opponents. The media blackout and CNN’s subsequent criticisms make it clear to all whose side Obama is on.

Will the BP deluge bring down Obama? Probably.

Who Gains from the Demise of the Russian Spy Ring?

Many News sources and blogs are speculating as to timing of the FBI's decision -less than one week after the "warm" visit to America, by Russian President Dmitry Anatolyevich Medvedev- to take down the Russian "scouting for talent” spy ring.

The New York Post quoted a FBI spokesman who explained that there are many classified reasons for the timing of the FBI's action. One unclassified reason was that "one of the 10 spies was about to leave the US". Another explanation prominent in left-wing American media and state-run Russian media is that it was American officials attempting to embarrass Obama and at the same time counter his call for a "reset" with Russia.

Are these explanations sufficient?

The first reason, offered by the FBI spokesperson, is full of holes. The FBI was following this spy ring for 10 years, do you expect us to believe that this is the first time that these well-camouflaged fake-Americans decided to leave the country. Furthermore, the intermediary between the ring and Russia’s spy agency, the SVR, was arrested in Cyprus, after their officials were notified of his presence. In other words, the fact that one of the spies was planning on leaving the US could not have been even a secondary reason -he/she could have been arrested anywhere. That is unless they were tipped off and planned to run to Russia, the one place where they would, presumably, be safe. But who would tip the spies off? A double agent in the FBI? If that is the case it could explain why the FBI waited 10 years to roll up the spy-ring. Namely the FBI suspected that there was a mole and waited patiently for him/her to expose themselves. When the mole informed the Russian spy that the FBI was on to them, the spy ran, was caught, and is probably being interrogated right now, about who his FBI friend is. Assuming all this arbitrary speculation has some truth to it, it still does not answer the question. Why did the mole inform the spy to run NOW?

Which leads us to the "embarrass Obama" explanation.

Why didn't these "officials" attempt to embarrass Obama when he was signing the nuclear arms reduction treaty (START), back in April?

Which leaves us with the possibility of another potential player, the former KGB spy and current prime minister, Vladimir Putin. Putin is being left out of the rampant media speculation and is basically being ignored.

Could it be that Putin, who many perceive to be the real leader of Russia, resents his protégé Medvedev's increasing power and his diminishing relevance?

Indeed in April during the START signing, “American officials” could really have embarrassed Obama. Putin was ubiquitous (and embarrassing Obama would not serve his purpose), but since then he seems to have disappeared. Was he mentioned during Medvedev's visit to the G-20, or during his visit to America? No and no, in both cases and more Putin has been inconspicuously absent.

Yet like sex-loving Bill , Putin continues to try to make himself relevant, for example, with his recent but irrelevant visit to Turkey, to meet with the Ahmadinejad and Erdogan. To no avail, Putin’s power is slipping and he knows it. Obama and Medvedev want to continue Russia's democratization, and Putin, well we don't really know.

So Putin goes ahead and flexes his political muscles, and reminds Medvedev, Obama, and the free world that he is still in a position of power, at least as a spoiler. Putin knew that the spy ring was compromised, (in fact America/Russian reciprocal spying has accelerated since the end of the cold war, and is blatant but tolerated) pulled some strings in Russia, or even here in America, and low and behold America and Russia are reminded that their relationship is more like Putin-Bush struggling over missile defense then it is Obama-Medvedev devouring cheeseburgers. Don't be surprised if you see the anti-American sentiment in Russia coalesce around Putin, i.e. making Putin relevant.

Am I sure? Of course not! But at the same time why should we accept that it is anti-Obama elements in AMERICA attempting to embarrass him or that other “was going to leave the US” hogwash?

It is more likely that Putin is the one that orchestrated this event. After all who is to gain from the demise of the Russian spy ring?








Putin of course.

In short, one more reason to vote Obama out of office.

Have you heard of Sholom Rubashkin? He is a philanthropist, father, husband, son, brother, and entrepreneur; The man who transformed a small kosher meat plant in Postville, Iowa into the biggest and most successful kosher meat operation in the world. That is until he was convicted on 86 counts of bank fraud and sentenced to 27 years of prison. Murderers, like Lemrick Nelson the man who stabbed Yankel Rosenbaum to death during a Black on Jewish riot- often receive single digit sentences. The fact that this is Rubashkin’s first conviction of any sort raises the question:

Why was a 51 year old man, basically given a life sentence, (if this ruling stands Rubashkin will be 77 when he is eligible for parole), for a first offense, when others convicted under similar circumstances were not?

Many in the Jewish community have offered the hackneyed, but substantial explanation, that anti-Semitism is at play. They offer historic evidence of America's legal record of dealing with high-profile Jewish criminals. For example the Rosenbergs, Jonathon Pollard , and Bernie Madoff. All of these infamous Jews were convicted criminals, and received severe sentences. Despite what Huffington Post and like-minded commentators will have you believe, Jack Abramoff was an exception not the rule, because of his connections in the white-house.

Others, mainly a few legal scholars, argue that the judge (who also happens to be the second harshest sentence producer in the nation)didn’t really have a choice.

Still there is another possible explanation.

It takes us back to 2006/2007 when two powerful organizations, PETA and the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, confronted Rubashkin.

PETA, the extremist animal-advocacy organization, has been targeting and besmirching kosher slaughter as inhuman for over a decade. This despite the fact that kosher slaughter is practiced as it is because it is considered the most humane manner of slaughter. Rubashkin's Agriprocessers, like most kosher slaughter houses practicing a millennia old tradition, refused to bow to PETA. Next, PETA turned to the far-left advocacy block to help them bring down Rubashkin.

The second organization, and by far the most significant, was the labor union which tried to shake Rubashkin down and at the same time force his employees to join their union.

This is key to understanding the Rubashkin case. After all who are the two biggest groups supporting Obama? Our president, a community activist, was put in power not so much by Jews as he was by the still-powerful unions. Who supported Obama in his bid for the presidency? The Unions and the far-left (not that the far-left is homogeneous, but PETA draws strongly from far-left ideology) of course.

This argument is bolstered by recent history -Obama has not shied away from putting his weight behind the unions before.

After a series of over-publicized Toyota brake mishaps, the administration's transportation secretary Ray Lahood, testified in front of congress on February 3rd of this year that “if anybody owns one of these vehicles [Toyota], stop driving it.” Anyone in the industry can tell you that all companies experience problems of the same magnitude.

The Obama administration had no problem interfering with our “free” enterprise and gave a tremendous edge to Toyota’s major competitor in America -owned by America- GM.

It should come as no surprise that the Rubashkin conviction was a result not only of a law and order judge gone-wild (with tenure), and residual anti-Semitism, but more so as a consequence of the unions/Obama partnership.

No I'm not saying this is Obama's fault, only that Rubashkins sentence would have been a lot less likely under a president that wasn't in bed with the Unions.

In short, one more reason to vote Obama out of office.

To Divide and Conquer with Elena Kagan! Paranoia or reality?

Obama recently nominated, Elena Kagan, a Jewish gay women, to replace Justice Paul Stevens on the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS). Stevens served as the leader of the so called progressive wing of the SCOTUS. Stevens was also the only Protestant serving on a court otherwise dominated by minorities, five Catholics and two Jews.

Ones racial/religious affiliation has been thee factor in nomination decisions of the past 60 years, and is key to understanding the evolved method of choosing candidates for the Supreme Court. Today’s Supreme Court already reflects a skewered demographic. Sotomayor, who just happens to be Latino, was seen as part of an effort to demographically rebalance the court. Ostensibly her nomination, established the vision of the Obama administration vis-a-vis the SCOTUS -a Jews nomination runs counter to this vision. It is now very likely that for the first time in American history SCOTUS will be without a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant (WASP) representing the majority religion and demographic in this country.

One would think that politically expediency is as play. Thus like in the case of Sotomayor nomination, the race/religion of the nominated would galvanize the voting base of that community in support of the nominator. Nominating Sotomayor made political sense; if you factor in our unseen immigrant population, Latinos are the largest minority in America. On the other hand the relevant strength of the Jewish voting public is relatively shrinking. Always a single digit minority the American-Jewish community does wield disproportionate political-power, but not so much as to compel a voter-hungry politician to disregard 50 percent of the real population. Moreover, Ruth Berta Ginsberg already represents the Jewish community.
Even though some speculate the Ginsberg is on her way out, it doesn’t justify a Jewish pick over a Protestant, even for a couple of months. What then is behind the Obama administrations reasoning?

The first and most simplistic explanation is that this is somehow tied to the recent gaff between Washington and Jerusalem which has spurred the administration to affirm its commitment to Israel via commitment to the Jewish community. It is even possible, though highly unlikely, that all this is just talk. This talk is intended to both strengthen Jewish support for the administration, which could then in actuality nominate a Protestant.

(Never mind that this is a flawed, but popular, conception of the relationship between Jews in America and their support for Israel. American-Jewish support for Israel is not intended to be at the expense of American success, on the contrary. Ignoring the Protestant majority undermines unity, which undermines America’s core strength. That is not good for America and therefore it is not good for Israel. In realty the American-Jewish community has every incentive to see America succeed. It is this blessed country that gave us opportunity, as it does all. Jews support Israel because, for amongst other reasons, a strong Israel is good for America. But we do not expect or want to ever see international politics intrude in something as important and private as the SCOTUS nomination process).

Still even the mere talk of a Jewish nominee, simply makes no sense. Clearly the court needs to represent the breadth of America society, but the majority should not be ignored even in conversation.

Another simplistic explanation is that Obama wants to assuage the far left and address the dearth of a gay representative on the court. This interpretation is more congruent with the administrations past behavior. Just as Sotomayor was chosen because she represented an unrepresented minority on the court, Latinos, so to should does this nomine.

The coarsest of perspectives, is that Kagan is an old Obama crony –Kagan served as dean of Harvard laws school, and taught at Chicago law. I mention this only for educational purposes, as it is clearly a likely coincidence.

Yet another reason offered is that Kagan has a flexible ideology. In other words when it comes to expanding executive power Kagan

“defended Bill Clinton's then-unprecedented attempt to control administrative agencies by expanding a variety of tools of presidential power that were originally created by the Reagan administration (some of which Kagan helped build while working in the Clinton White House), all as a means of overcoming a GOP-controlled Congress” http://www.salon.com/news/elena_kagan/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan

On the other hand

“Kagan's record on social issues will likely be perfectly satisfactory, even pleasing, to most progressives. She is, by all appearances, solidly pro-choice and in favor of gay equality”. http://www.salon.com/news/elena_kagan/index.html?story=/opinion/greenwald/2010/04/13/kagan

The result is an easy confirmation, in a time when everything Obama attempts is challenged to the end. Conservatives will find it easy to support an individual who espouses the same views that underpinned Bush 2 conceptions of broad executive powers. At the same time Progressives will support her based on her social-progressive views.

Still do any or all of these explanations trump the need to have 50 percent of our population represented on SCOTUS? Is it really impossible to find a gay WASP, with credentials? Would not the addition of the WASP element engender an even greater promise of bi-partisanship?

Another way of understanding this enigmatic move, is to ask what does Obama gain with this nomination?

Of course this question is premised on the notion that a president looks for some degree of extrinsic reward in any major action undertaken.

Kagans views on major issues like the Obama administration in general are clouded in a disturbing degree of ambiguity. This makes the lack of a plausible motivation behind Obama choice all the more disturbing.

What we can be sure of is that if a Protestant is not chosen whoever is chosen along with their community, will attract the hidden ire of large segment of the population.

I don’t know if this a paranoid conclusion. At the same time to think that the Obama inner circle over looked these questions is equally delusional. Considering Obama’s roots it is not too far off, to divide and conquer our country and use an individual from a certain community to do it?! Paranoia or reality? (UPDATE ITS ALREADY STARTING http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/14/pat-buchanan-too-many-jew_n_576948.html,http://www.huffingtonpost.com/art-brodsky/the-big-lie-about-the-fcc_b_576094.html )

Robin Obama: Hero or a Villian?

My family, which is conservative leaning, and I, a self described realist, have been debating the relative merits of a state imposed health care system.

Months ago, during one of these conversations, I informed a close family member that as far as I was concerned I felt that health care had to be reformed in this country and besides I, a working student, don't have health care and would like to see a doctor once in a while.

In other words I supported health care reform because I would benefit. I suppose there are many others that see it the same way.

Recently, I have revisited this from a more egalitarian perspective. Now I ask at what cost will Obama-care benefit me?
On one hand every human being has a moral responsibility to assist their neighbor as best they can. On the other hand can the state impose such a moral code on its citizens?

For those of you who enjoy a more theoretical scenario... Was Robin Hood a hero or a villain; to steal from the rich to give to the poor? While many instinctively respond that he was a hero, here is another perspective that perhaps will change your mind.
Historically speaking, the Robin Hood policy was applied to Jews in every corner of the "civilized" world. The Jew who was undesirable and must have achieved his/her wealth through usury or some other insidious means was forced to return some or all of that wealth to society. Sometimes this was achieved "legally" through a "Jew Tax" other times the Jews where simply expelled from the land ( England 1290, France 1305, 1683 Spain, 1492, Egypt, Syria, Libya, Morrow, Iran, Iraq, Lebanon 1940-1960) of course Jews were required to leave all their assets behind. Or Jews were killed (1640-50 Eastern Europe, 1910's Russia, 1940's Western Europe etc.), again leaving their "ill-earned" assets to the "oppressed masses and governments".

However like many of the upper-middle and rich of America, the overwhelming majority of Jews achieved their wealth through hard work, perseverance, and plan old innovation (for more on this analogy please view or read Niall Ferguson's The Ascent of Money, PBS). To legally take their wealth by imposing a moral requirement sounds good, but is in reality a reoccurring historical wrong. It is a form of Robin Hood thinking, the imposition of the majority’s desires on the minority.

It is a powerful argument and one that I once ascribed to.

As a Jew whose forefathers where abused by the majority the idea that Jew has been replaced with “rich-man” as the target of Robin-hood practices is abominable.

But why?

Why is it that the rich should not be forced to give to the poor? After all in Ancient Israel and today Jews are REQUIRED TO GIVE 1/10 of their income to charity. Muslims and Christians are likewise admonished to give to charity. Why not have a secular authority enshrine this in American law?

(This perspective holds true despite that face that the American public already VOLUNTARILY, gives disproportionately to charity (http://www.jewishachievement.com/domains/phil.html).

To this valid and important question the answer is clear.
Americans already give a tremendous amount of money to larger society. In Brooklyn, where I live, I know a number of people who live in free housing WITH CABLE! In other words the FED has already exhausted its "biblical" ability to tax.

We Americans with or without health-care should not be blinded by the Robin Hood syndrome. At the end of the day humanity was given free will, morality or alleged morality, cannot be imposed. Obama-Hood is not the way.

The Linkers and the Thinkers": Is Americas Support For Israel Hurting America (2)

The Linkers position is premised on the notion that if Israel is disliked by its neighbors America will be disliked by Israel’s neighbors. This is because America is perceived as supporting Israel. Monetarily in the form of 2.2 billion a year, militarily by sharing much of Americas advanced weaponry , and politically by defending Israel in the UN, UNHRC, and UNSC.

If supporting Israel is so detrimental to American interests then why does America support Israel? The linker responds that the Israeli lobby has a tight hold on the US congress and demands support for Israel, as the price for electoral backing by AIPAC.
Some more intelligent linkers concede that America has a moral obligation to support Israel.
This moral obligation is an extension of the Truman doctrine which sought to constrain post World War II Soviet expansion, by supporting all Democracies. Israel is the only Democracy in the Middle-East. Linkers contend that America’s political and strategic obligations trump their moral obligations.

This is the crux of the Carter/Brzezinski/Obama argument. America is faced with an either or scenario, support Israel or support the Arabs. Their conclusion is that they must, from a strategic perspective, support the Arabs –in some instances by pressuring Israel. In other words there is no middle-ground. Brzezinski, Obamas Foreign policy advisory recent statements reflect this either-or perspective. In response to the question of what America should do if Israel attempts to use Iraqi airspace to bomb Iran nuclear facilities:

" Well, we have to be serious about denying them that right. That means a denial where you aren’t just saying it. If they fly over, you go up and confront them. They have the choice of turning back or not. No one wishes for this but it could be a Liberty in reverse."(http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2009/09/brezinski-calls-for-obama-to-shoot-down-israeli-jets-a-liberty-in-reverse.html)

In other words EITHER let Israel use Iraqi space controlled by America to prevent Iran from going nuclear -a threat the Israelis see as existential -OR take the Iran side, and by proxy Syria and Lebanon, and shoot down Israeli planes. This despite the fact that America agrees (from a moral standpoint and as Thinkers argue also from a strategic standpoint) that Iran should not have nuclear weapons. Thus taking the position that, strategically, Iran is more important than Israel, even though morally Israel is in the right.

Furthermore the linkers assert that there is no gray area – a scenario like Israel doing what it must and America criticizing Israel after the fact, which America must.

The linkers take this perspective and apply it to the Israel decision to build in Jerusalem. They claim that Israel must be stopped at all costs because strategically it’s in America’s interest to do so. After all the stability of the middle-east is linked to Israel’s actions.

Indeed the linkers rhetorically contend, "would America rather have Iran, Syria, and the rest of the Muslim world as allies or little troublesome Israel"?

There are many variations of this argument. For example some linkers concede that Israel is not the cause of ALL instability in the larger middle-east, but that it is one cause that needs to be addressed.In other words Israel is a smaller problem to American interests then hard-core linkers think, BUT STILL A PROBLEM.

Some that take this view, explain that America would be better off allying with Iran and Turkey -both non Arabic states- then they would with the Israel/Jordan/Egypt/Saudi Arabia faction. After all Iran and Turkey are burgeoning powers in the region AND are Muslim. Indeed this view is relatively comprehensive in that explains Iran's drive for nuclear weapons and Turkeys reorientation towards the region as an attempt to create the political capital to bend American foreign policy. The linker urges America to accept.

The bottom line is that Linkers argue that it is in America’s strategic interest to pressure Israel or pull support.

For the Thinker it is strategically AND morally essential for America to ally completely with Israel. This will be discussed in part three of this series.

Haman and Rahm Emmanuel: The Liar and the Advisor

Haman and Rahm Emmanuel have much in common.

Haman had served Persia in the past, when he was a failed general for the Persian army. Emmanuel served the Clinton administration, but was lesser known.

Then Haman was suddenly elected to the post of chief adviser to the most powerful man in the world. Emmanuel was unexpectedly chosen as chief-of-staff to Obama, the most powerful man in the world.

Haman was opposed to a Jewish presence on earth. Rahm Emmamuel, is opposed to a Jewish presence in the West Bank in Israel.

Haman had all the people in Sushan bow to him. Rahm Emmanuel is famous for his bark and bite attitude towards the presidents staff and everyone else that enters the white house.

Yet there is a major difference between Rahm Emmanuel and Haman.

Haman lied to the king when he said that the Jews where disloyal, he lied for his own gains. Perhaps even attempting to weaken the king’s political base, to make it easier for him to implement a coup and usurp the Persian crown.

Emmanuel is advising Obama. In his opinion settlements impede peace in Israel. Because Rahm follows the linkage argument whose central proposition states that the Israeli/Palestinian conflict, has a causal relationship with the instability in the greater Middle-East. Therefore for the Middle-East to be stable the Israeli/Palestinian conflict needs to be resolved.

Thus Emmanuel believes what he says, whereas Haman lied in an effort to fulfill his beliefs.

The real question is whether Emmanuel will be an Esther when he wakes up and sees the Persians about to launch a nuke at Israel or like Haman implicitly allowing the nuke to be launched?

The Politics of Semantics: Fences and Terrorism

In, "Ethics of our Fathers", the late first century scholar, Rabbi Akiba defines the word fence by the role it plays. For example, "a fence to wisdom is silence" or "a fence to wealth is charity". The word fence is used interchangeably with "protect" because a major role of fences is to protect.

A more recent example of semantic adeptness was displayed by the Obama administration. Thus the Fort Hood massacre was a "crime" and the recent Christmas attempt to blow up a plane was "terrorism". Yet, it would seem that the only real difference between the two cases is that the later was unsuccessful.
Is partial failure the only determining factor in whether the term terror is employed?
If so, does that mean that 9/11 wasn't a terrorist attack?

Alternatively, politics is the determining factor. In that case, one CAN be a politically viable candidate if a terror attack is unsuccessful, whereas one losses their chance at a 1012 election if the terrorist act is successful, in that case it becomes imperative, for the politician to make a distinction and label it a crime.

What is interesting here is that Rabbi Akiba used words to foster inclusiveness whereas the Obama administration, ostensiby, views words as an opportunity to exclude.

This difference could boil down to the subject at issue, which allows us to be more or less honest in our word usage. On the other hand it may reflect an outlook that is geared towards differentiation whether those differences are real or just a matter of semantics.

Is this condusive to unity?