A follow-up to yesterday's post

After reading Dean Obeidallah's post that prompted mine of yesterday entitled “The “Palestinians’ — who are they?” I wrote an e-mail to him, challenging his claim that simply because there was, for less than thirty years, a place named “Palestine” on the map (a name given by colonizers and never adopted by its residents freely), there is truly a “Palestinian” people. He actually responded rather quickly, which was perhaps better than I expected. But he seemed to think my note was a joke:

…are you a comedian because you are making me laugh? (or were you being serious - if you were than Im laughing at you) In any event thanks for the laugh. Are you Sarah Palin's foreign policy advisor by any chance?

Perhaps his whole post was a joke, not just the comment about his father being an inventor, which I saw as one. In that case, I apologize for not seeing the humor. My post was intended as serious discussion. If anyone can show any real justification for considering the term “Palestinian” as meaningful, I really would like to see it.

The "Palestinians" -- who are they?

There is a post on The Daily Beast by Dean Obeidallah entitled “Do Palestinians Really Exist?” which attempts to answer this question in the affirmative. But it is clearly based on a fraudulent argument. It starts:

Palestine. My late father, Abdul Musa Obeidallah, was born there in the 1930s. When I say Palestine, that’s not a political statement. It’s just a statement of fact. When he was born, there was no state of Israel. There was no Hamas. No PLO. There were just people of different faiths living together on the same small piece of land called Palestine.

What is true in ths statement is that “When he was born, there was no state of Israel.” What is unsaid is that the Palestine mandate was given that name by British colonizers. And, going back to Roman days, the name was first applied to this piece of land by Roman colonizers. There never has been a group of people living there who, of their own free choice, called this territory “Palestine.”

In the 1930s, the Japanese created a puppet state called Manchukuo, separate from China, which nobody but the Japanese accepted. Did the citizens thereby take on a new nationality, distinct from Chinese? Very few of them would have answered “yes” to that question. The same is true of “Palestine.” The name was an outside creation. People of Arab heritage, in “Palestine” in the 1920s and 1930s, asked their nationality, would certainly not have called themselves “Palestinians” — they were probably “Syrians,” if not merely “Arabs.” Obeidallah can refer to “Palestine” when he says:

When I ask these people what the land where Israel is now located was called before 1948, they tend to stammer or offer some convoluted response. The answer is simply Palestine. Not a big deal, really.

But “Palestine” was not the name anyone would call it as an independent nation. Jews were seeking to create a Jewish State of Israel. The Arab inhabitants wanted a Greater Syria (or in some other cases other names corresponding to neighboring countries, but certainly not a nation of “Palestine”). An interesting article points out that:

The word “Palestine,” originally used by the Romans, had been in disuse for centuries, but the British revived it. “Palestinian” described Muslims, Jews and all others living in the region. And land east of the Jordan River, which they had also acquired, they called Transjordan (to be renamed Jordan in 1949). The word “Arab” referred more to those who spoke Arabic than to people purely Arabic, and included Christians. Previous to the arrival of the British, the Arabs in Palestine had thought of themselves as Arabs rather than as Palestinians.

So when Obeidallah says:

After all, there are more than 5 million Palestinians in the West Bank, Gaza, and Israel alone. Of course, that didn’t stop Newt Gingrich from commenting during his failed 2012 run for president that the Palestinians are an “invented” people. Here, I thought for years my father had been a cook, but apparently he was an inventor.

he is clearly joking. Later in the same paragraph, he continues:

he would have found that most historians mark the beginning of the Palestinian Arab nationalist movement as happening in 1824, when the Arabs there rebelled against Ottoman rule.

In fact, I can't find any trace of an 1824 revolt in “Palestine,” but there was one in what is now Saudi Arabia. So I wonder what Obeidallah is talking about. In any case, I am certain that any participants in whatever 1824 revolt he is describing called themselves “Arabs,” and not “Palestinians.”

Moral equivalence?

Rick Bayan is the owner of a blog called "The New Moderate," with which I often agree and, even when I disagree with him, which I appreciate for his attempts to find a “moderate” position. Today he put out a post entitled “Itching for Another World War” which discusses a number of things, but a large piece of it discusses the fighting now going on between Israel and Hamas. And unbelievably, his conclusion is rather hard to take:

For now, let’s focus on Israel and its implacable adversaries. Both sides have been going at it with alarming gusto, and of course both sides claim to be victims. Hamas militants have been firing away at Israel mindlessly and persistently, like mosquitoes tormenting a sweaty horse, giving Israel a perfect excuse to fire back. Israel, no longer the plucky underdog of its early decades, has been spilling mostly-innocent Arab blood in the Gaza Strip, an Arab-occupied, Hamas-dominated patch of real estate the size of Philadelphia.

So who’s to blame? The obvious answer, at least from The New Moderate’s perspective, is both sides.

He correctly identifies the problem, I think, when he writes:

Hamas, like all Islamic terror groups, is guilty of refusing to accept the validity of Israeli statehood. What will it take for these Muslim militants to stop begrudging the Jewish people, dispersed and oppressed for nearly two thousand years, a New Jersey-sized slice of turf occupying roughly half their ancestral homeland, with a little extra desert thrown in for good measure? Where were the Jewish survivors of Nazi depredations supposed to establish a modern state for their people – Antarctica? The Jews earned their right to Israel through a combination of land purchases, grit and perseverance, and they’ve successfully defended it three times against staggering odds. The people we call Palestinians are simply Arabs who lived in an artificial state created from the ruins of the Ottoman Empire. After the establishment of Israel in 1948, they were free to stay put or find a new home within a vast Arab dominion that stretches from Morocco to the Iranian border. Israelis have only Israel. This much is certain: if terror groups like Hamas stopped putting Israel in their crosshairs, the bloodshed in the so-called Holy Land would stop tomorrow.

He even recognizes the artificiality of the “Palestinian nationality.” But yet, he proceeds to write:

And what about Israel, now widely vilified (especially on the multiculti left) as a world-class imperialist oppressor of indigenous peoples? First of all, Israel must plead guilty to creating a caste system that relegated its resident Arabs to second-class status. Yes, Israel was founded as a Jewish state, and you can’t blame Israel’s Jews for wanting to keep it that way. But Israel can be shockingly, almost gleefully ruthless in lashing back at its enemies; that ruthlessness has been amply displayed during the ongoing blockade and siege of Gaza. You’d think a civilized people who endured centuries of persecution at the hands of ethnic majorities would show a little more sensitivity toward the minorities in their midst – at least toward the civilians who suffer most from Israeli overkill. I’ll never forget the chilling words of an extremist rabbi who declared that “a million Arabs aren’t worth one Jewish fingernail.”

Now first of all, he refers to “a caste system that relegated its resident Arabs to second-class status.” I really wonder what he means there. There are Arabs in the Israeli Knesset (Parliament), and Arabs in the highest court of the land. By what measure are they “second-class”? On all matters where religion matters, the Jews run their own affairs, and Christians and Muslims run theirs. It's not like Saudi Arabia, where public celebration of Christmas can get you in trouble with the law. As for that rabbi who said “a million Arabs aren’t worth one Jewish fingernail,” this was one extremist — it hardly represents the views of the Israeli government.

So how can Rick Bayan say there is guilt on both sides? Hamas is killing innocent civilians, deliberately. Israel is firing back at the enemy, and, yes, killing innocent civilians, but warnings have been given in advance so they could have left, and they didn't. This is hardly a case of equally sharing the blame. I see not a single thing that Israel is doing in this war that they aren't forced to do, and that any other country would do in a similar situation.

How can a “moderate” criticize Israel in this battle?

Why can't Israel determine its own capital?

When Mitt Romney said in his visit to Israel that Jerusalem was its capital, he was really stating what should be the obvious. But (despite a Congressional declaration years ago) the United States has refused to recognize this fact, and has put its embassy in Tel Aviv as a sop to Arab sentiment. Still, it would seem to me that openly denying that Israel has a right to put its capital wherever it chooses — a right that every other nation in the world unquestionably has — goes way too far. Yet the Obama White House has done just that: denied that Israel has the right to locate its capital in the city of its choice:

In what marks a decisive difference in the presidential campaign, one day after Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney called Jerusalem the capital of Israel, the White House asserted that Romney’s position was different from that of the Obama administration.

“Our view is that that is a different position than this administration holds. It’s the view of this administration that the capital should be determined in final status negotiations between parties,” White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Monday.

In other words, Israel's choice of a capital is hostage to “final status negotiations between parties” — it cannot designate its own capital until the Arabs have deemed that negotiations have gone far enough to go into their final phase — something that seems unlikely ever to happen. How would President Obama feel if some foreign country denied that Washington was our nation's capital? Oh yes, he's not all that proud of this country anyway, so he might welcome some foreign country telling us that our capital is where they tell us it is.

Is there any doubt that Pres. Obama needs to be retired this November?

Romney's trip to Israel

Some people seem to think that some things that Mitt Romney said in Israel were gaffes — he proclaimed that Israel's capital was in Jerusalem, which is what the Israelis have always said (and one would think Israel had the right to locate its capital wherever it wants!) and where the Congress of the United States has by a substantial majority said it was (even if it is contrary to Obama administration policy!); he never once mentioned the word “Palestinian” (and I think this is a good thing, as I have said before; there never has been in history any such thing as a “Palestinian people”), and as a result of the latter, the prime minister of the “Palestinian Authority” was offended. (Well, let the PA recognize that the Jewish people have a right to a homeland, and then they might have a case for more consideration!)

I think Mitt Romney is right on the truth there. It is the Obama administration that has been cozying up to the Arabs and needs to be set straight.

Anti-Semites: Ron Paul, and Pat Buchanan -- does the GOP want their kind?

The Washington Examiner has formally endorsed Mitt Romney, but clearly some of its columnists have different ideas. Today I saw a column by Timothy P. Carney, a columnist who has a twice-weekly column in that paper, and who seems to be favoring Ron Paul. Carney refers to Paul as “[t]he principled, antiwar, Constitution-obeying, Fed-hating, libertarian Republican congressman from Texas,” and while his libertarianism has much to recommend him (though it goes to a far-too-extreme degree, by my standards), there is one particular aspect of Ron Paul that Carney seems to deny: Ron Paul's anti-Semitism.

Of course, in that same column, Carney seems to deny that Pat Buchanan was anti-Semitic. And Buchanan has made some statements that cannot be construed any other way. For example,

Indeed, of the last seven justices nominated by Democrats JFK, LBJ, Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, one was black, Marshall; one was Puerto Rican, Sonia Sotomayor. The other five were Jews: Arthur Goldberg, Abe Fortas, Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

If Kagan is confirmed, Jews, who represent less than 2 percent of the U.S. population, will have 33 percent of the Supreme Court seats.

Is this the Democrats' idea of diversity?

But while leaders in the black community may be upset, the folks who look more like the real targets of liberal bias are white Protestants and Catholics, who still constitute well over half of the U.S. population.

And there is quite a number of other quotes by Pat Buchanan that can be found, such as (in 1990):

After denouncing a group of commentators with Jewish names, including Abe Rosenthal, Richard Perle and Henry Kissinger, Buchanan wrote: “If it comes to war, it will not be the civilized world humping up that bloody road to Baghdad, it will be American kids with names like McAllister, Murphy, Gonzales and Leroy Brown."

And, (in 2007):

“If you want to know ethnicity and power in the United States Senate, 13 members of the Senate are Jewish folks who are from 2 percent of the population. That is where the real power is at…"

If Buchanan is not an anti-Semite, Hitler was a rabbi! But we are really talking about Ron Paul. And it doesn't take much digging to find quotes by him that demonstrate his anti-Semitism. In fact, the same Examiner that featured Carney's column recently carried a column by Philip Klein, with such notes as:

Nearly three years ago, Israel launched a counterattack on Palestinian terrorists in Gaza who had been firing thousands of rockets at Israeli civilians. In early January 2009, Paul released a web video in which he charged that Israel was launching a “pre-emptive war,” that Palestinians were living in a “concentration camp” and that they merely had “a few small missiles.”

He then repeated this claim on Press TV — the state-owned propaganda channel of Iran's Islamist government. “To me, I look at it like a concentration camp, and people are making homemade bombs,” he said of the situation in Gaza, adding sarcastically, “like they're they aggressors?”

Not only did Paul inaccurately portray Israel as the aggressor, and ignore the Israeli victims of Palestinian terrorist attacks, but he also played into the global propaganda campaign to delegitimize Israel. Israel's enemies think that Jews have exploited global sympathy for the Holocaust, so they routinely liken Israelis to Nazis with phrases like “concentration camp.” That isn't an isolated instance of Paul employing the term. He also used it in 2010, when the Israeli navy blocked a flotilla funded by a group with terrorist ties as it attempted to break the blockade of Gaza — a blockade designed to prevent weapons from reaching Gaza terrorists. Nine of the “activists” aboard one ship were killed in the act of attacking the Israeli commandos who intercepted them — an event well documented on video. In response, Paul again condemned Israel, reiterating his claim that Palestinians were living in “concentration camps” in Gaza.

One can accept Paul's desire to avoid foreign wars as a product of his desire to reduce the role of government in general. But his desire in particular to avoid wars in support of Israel is not just that. It is clearly a sign of an underlying anti-Semitism.

Herman Cain's defects

Yesterday's Washington Examiner contains an interesting column by Ken Klukowski entitled, “Four 'Cs' of why Cain is unelectable”:

Catchy alliterations — starting with the same letter or number — are popular in politics. Herman Cain's “9-9-9” is a perfect example. Republicans need to consider another alliteration involving Herman Cain, however. One that could give Barack Obama a second term.

Many men learn the four “Cs” when they buy a diamond ring to propose marriage: carat, color, cut, clarity. Another four “Cs” could mean a short marriage between Republicans and Cain: competency, consistency, character, crisis management.

First, competency. We already elected one president with a scant record of public service, allowing him to base his candidacy on rhetoric. Once elected, his rhetoric was miles removed from his policies.

Instead of a short record, Cain has no public record. Although he's a very successful businessman, you can expect Obama to point out that this nation has never elected a president without any record of serving as a government officer (since Army generals are officers of the United States, and we've only elected commanding generals who saved this nation in war).

Cain's unawareness that China has had nuclear weapons for decades makes easy attack ads. Millions of Americans who don't know much about foreign policy know China has nukes.

The fact that Cain didn't will worry “security moms” and veterans. While jobs are important, any president's highest responsibility is as commander in chief.

A Palestinian right of return would destroy Israel as a Jewish nation. Cain voiced support, then later reversed, explaining that he knew nothing about this basic Middle-East issue and instead supports Israel. In other words, he bluffed his way through the interview to hide his lack of knowledge.

This is also an example of the second “C,” consistency.

His 180-reversal on abortion raises eyebrows. Last month he said it was a woman's choice, which is what pro-choice politicians say. John Kerry said he was personally pro-life, but didn't think government should impose his view on others.

To undo this damage, Cain made passionate pro-life statements, with no exceptions for rape and incest. Expect those video clips in Obama attack ads next fall targeted at suburban and single women.

Cain's 9-9-9 plan was supposed to be simple. Now he says for some people it would be 9-0-9, that there will be economic development zones with different tax structures, and that all this is a transition to a 30 percent national sales tax.

Third, character. Even baseless sex-harassment allegations can sink candidates. Cain's accusers are now free to speak, but eschewing public attention for the moment.

Don't speculate on nameless, faceless allegations. Cain deserves the presumption of innocence. No facts have been publicly revealed to suggest otherwise.

But if these women support Obama, they could drop a bomb on Cain before the general election if he wins the nomination. Assuming the accusations are false, with enough money and press attention they could cost Cain millions of moderate votes by raising serious doubts about his character right before Election Day, capitalizing on the fact that Cain hasn't been vetted through years of public service.

Fourth, crisis management. Presidents are beset with crises, one after another. Effectively responding in a disciplined manner is critical to maintaining public confidence and marshaling support to respond.

Cain's unfocused and now flailing response to the sex-harassment scandal is painful to watch, especially since he knew this was coming. His whipsaw reversal on abortion confuses people. And his unawareness on basic issues like China and Israel could slow and muddle situations requiring quick and decisive action. He's failed the test of deftly handling bad news.

Cain might beat back all these issues in the primaries. But each of them costs him votes with swing voters, making him less electable. Is Cain becoming the candidate President Obama wants to face next year?

Many of Klukowski's comments are points I share. And I worry that too many people, because they have problems with Mitt Romney, may push the party into nominating Cain, which, for the reasons Klukowski gives, would be a disaster for the party. Let us remember that the goal is to defeat President Obama's re-election campaign in 2012, not to nominate the purest conservative. And this is why we need to unite behind Romney

But will he really do it?

Newt Gingrich is supposed to make a speech tonight to the Republican Jewish Coalition in Beverly Hills, California. In it, he "will pledge that, if elected president, he would sign an executive order on his first day in office moving the American embassy to Jerusalem from Tel Aviv."

I wish I could believe it. But of course, Gingrich is not too likely to be nominated, let alone elected, so he won't get a chance to prove his sincerity.

Not a single President, not even the most pro-Israel of them, has been willing to do this, despite the fact that it is simple courtesy to put your embassy in the capital city of the country it is accredited to. But (perhaps because of Arab oil money), no President has been willing to do this. Because the so-called "Palestinians" want to put their capital there.

I wish people would recognize the facts: there has never been such a nationality as "Palestinian." Before 1948, in fact, the only people living in the area who referred to British Palestine by the name of Palestine were the Jews. The Arabs wanted it considered as part of "Greater Syria." And in 1948, the Arabs were offered a state in the area by the United Nations, but refused it; they wanted all of British Palestine, not just a share of it. When the Jews took the UN up on its offer, the Arabs immediately attacked, but were defeated in the ensuing war, and Israel began its existence with a larger share of the territory than the UN had offered (but still a very hard-to-defend area, with a narrow neck of land in the middle).

But the Arabs never acknowledged their defeat, and still wanted to eliminate the Israeli nation completely. After two more wars, in 1967 and 1982, some Arabs (not yet all, even now!) are willing to accept an Israeli nation, if they go back to the 1948-1967 boundaries! It would be like Mexico wanting to recognize the US only if it gave back the Southwest and went back to the pre-1850 boundaries — this just isn't going to happen.

The only way to settle the Arab-Israeli question is if the Arabs are willing to accept Israel's existence and negotiate with them to determine what portion of the territories won by Israel in 1967 will Israel willingly return, in exchange for a true cessation of hostilities. The Arabs have no case: they must realize that, like Japan in 1945, they have to rely on Israel's good will. They cannot keep acting as if they can dictate terms to Israel.

But I don't think they are ready to do that. How many more wars will it take?

And why can't a US President do what Newt Gingrich says he'll do?

Israel's borders

President Obama is showing, once more, his pro-Arab bias. His administration is trying to push Israel to go back to its 1967 borders, giving up, for example, the Old City of Jerusalem, which is holy to Jews. And this only on the hope that it might get peace from the Arabs.

Our neighbor, Canada, makes a lot more sense. The Canadian prime minister, Stephen Harper, understands the situation. The Toronto Globe and Mail reports:

The Harper government is refusing to join the United States in calling for a return to 1967 borders as a starting point for Mideast peace, a position that has drawn sharp criticism from Canada’s staunch ally Israel.

At a briefing ahead of the upcoming G8 summit in France, federal officials said the basis for the negotiations must be mutually agreed upon.

It's a fine kettle of fish when the U. S., usually Israel's staunchest ally, takes a position that, compared to Canada's, is hostile. But what can be expected of a man named "Barack Hussein Obama"?

The Middle East - What is our interest?

It would seem that the US has a conflicting set of interests in the Middle East. First, ours is a government which wants to spread its philosophy (expressed by our greatest President, Abraham Lincoln) of "government of the people, by the people, for the people." But we have economic interests (we want oil from that area) and political interests (pro-American foreign policies, and toning down hostilities with Israel). These don't always go together. When Iran was ruled by the Shah, it was friendly to us and to Israel. But it was certainly not ruled by its people. And the current popular unrest in Egypt can lead to President Mubarak's being replaced by an Islamist government, which would be much less likely to promote a peaceful border with Israel. (Note this poll, which I saw referenced in today's Washington Examiner, which shows an Islamist attitude. On the other hand, the poll also shows a support for democracy, which looks better.)

So where does our interest lie in the Middle East? I'm not really sure.

On Mark McKinnon's program (Part 3 of 3)

The last four of Mark McKinnon's proposals:

9. Go nuclear. The ultimate green strategy, good for the environment, good for the economy and therefore doable, is a natural-gas-to-nuclear-power plan proposed by contrarian Robert Bryce. Wind and solar power are land-intensive, a green sin, but not energy-dense, and affordable only when heavily subsidized. And wind power must be supplemented with hydrocarbons for reliability. Texas leads the nation and is sixth globally in wind production, yet only 8.7 percent of installed capacity is dependable during peak demand. And it provides only 1.2 percent of the state's total energy need. In Denmark, the poster child for wind power, neither carbon dioxide emissions nor hydrocarbon consumption have been reduced. Natural gas resources in the U.S. are equivalent to three times the known oil reserves of Iraq. Natural gas is the near-term solution for cleaner fuel and the bridge to the fuel of the future—nuclear, the most carbon-neutral, power-dense, relatively affordable and available energy source. As Bryce says, "If you are anti-carbon dioxide and anti-nuclear, you are pro-blackout."

I have long agreed with this proposal. People are afraid of Three Mile Island-type scenarios, but nobody was harmed by Three Mile Island. People were seriously affected by Chernobyl, but that was a type of reactor we don't think of building in the U. S., precisely because of the hazards associated with it.

10. Get right. Repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy in the U.S. military and legalizing same-sex marriage are issues of equality for all. Sixty percent of Americans favor allowing gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military. Gay people serve their countries openly in the British, Canadian, and Israeli military. Don't Ask, Don't Tell is discriminatory, and it limits our ability to recruit and retain the greatest numbers of the best and brightest, especially critical while we are still fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, both back this needed reform. And for the first time since Pew started tracking opinions on same-sex marriage 15 years ago, fewer than half of those polled now say they oppose legalizing the institution. Republicans constantly claim to be the party that defends the Constitution. In my opinion, we have no legitimate right to that claim until we get right on gay rights. It's way past time for the GOP to come out in support of equality for all.

Frankly, I've said enough on this topic that anyone reading this blog knows McKinnon's proposal has my full approval, so I need to say nothing more.

11. Open the borders. Any act that proposes 16,000 additional IRS agents can't be good. But President Obama is right: "Consumers do better when there is choice and competition." Unfortunately, the misnamed Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act does neither. Seventy-nine percent of Republican voters, 56 percent of voters not affiliated with either party, and a majority of voters in the battleground congressional districts still favor repeal. As an alternate strategy to lower costs, it's time to open the borders to allow the purchase of private health insurance across state lines, and to allow consumers and businesses to associate for better pool rates. Just six months after the bill was signed into law, consumers face increasing premiums, fewer choices when it comes to health-care insurers and providers. Squeezed by Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement payments below cost and mounting liability insurance costs, doctors may soon be an endangered species. There's a reason doctors have flocked to Texas since 2002: tort reform. Tort reforms are needed to protect patients' access to health care providers.

When I first looked at his title, I thought this proposal was going to deal with illegal immigration, but actually, as will be seen below, that is his next proposal. In fact this #11 is a really common-sense proposal. Some pieces of it have already been endorsed on this blog; I really agree with just about all of it.

12. Recognize reality. It's time to fix illegal immigration. Voters in Arizona and Texas are rightfully frustrated by the federal government's disinterest in protecting our sovereignty. Though unemployment numbers are high, low-skilled immigrants actually expand the size of the overall economy. Punishing those who work hard, who do not hurt others, and who seek a path out of poverty for their families is not the answer. The fixes need to begin now, and begin in parallel. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) has the right plan. Secure the border; ceding a no-go zone to foreign drug lords on American territory is not acceptable. Deport illegal immigrants with felony convictions. For the 11 million already in this country, provide a tough but fair path forward which would include paying fines and back taxes, passing background checks, proving English proficiency and going to the back of the line to work toward lawful permanent residence. We need to expand and simplify the farm-worker program to address seasonal work needs. Issue all legal U.S. workers, including citizens and immigrants, a biometric ID card. And strengthen the penalties and enforcements for employers. At the same time, we need to expand the number of visas issued for high-skilled workers in science and technology, the next Einstein may be waiting.

This is probably a pretty reasonable way to handle it. It is close to the plan which was proposed by both George W. Bush and John McCain, but extremists on both sides led to its being scuttled.

McKinnon closes by saying:

It's not a brand that brings the middle together. It's a shared belief: The promise of America still exists. Though the system is corrupted, and government now rules as the master, not the servant, the ideal of liberty balanced by responsibility lives on—right in the middle.

That is a pretty good summary.

Israel under attack -- by words as well as weapons

The Israelis recently attacked a ship bringing stuff to Gaza, and were condemned for it. Oh come now... what do you expect?

Israel, the only free country in the Middle East, has enemies all over the world. At least when George W. Bush was president, the US was its friend. But not with Barack Obama. The Obama administration, through Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, called the Israeli blockade of Gaza "unsustainable and unacceptable." In other words, the US government wants Israel to just lean back and let Hamas do its best to destroy Israel.


Christian countries can do whatever they want. Moslem countries can do whatever they want -- no matter what people say about Ahmedinejad, nobody really does anything to stop him. But let Israel engage in self-defense, in the face of a Hamas regime in Gaza that has its mind set on destroying Israel, and it is "unsustainable and unacceptable." My loyalty is to the US; I'm a citizen of this nation. But I cannot defend the position of the US government here, nor of such "friendly" governments as most of the ones in Europe. If they were under the same kind of attack as Israel is from Hamas, I'm sure they'd do at least as much as the Israelis did.

Arlen Specter's party shift - continued

(this message is being cross-posted to the Range Voting Yahoo group and to my own blog, as it is both a response to a post on the group and a continuation of a post I made yesterday on the blog.)


My initial reaction to Arlen Specter's party change was one of extreme pain. Of all the 100 members of the United States Senate (well, all 99, as one seat from Minnesota is still being contested), Arlen Specter was probably the one closest to my own political ideology. And yet, unlike Sen. Specter, I feel that the Democratic Party is still much further away from all that I believe in than the Republican Party, so there is no way I would ever make the party change that Specter did.


But (particularly after reading more about what has happened) I see the reason behind it. And clearly the whole problem was Pennsylvania electoral law. The situation is obviously the mirror image of what happened to Joe Lieberman in 2006; the Connecticut Democratic Party in 2006 was so dominated by extremists that Joe Lieberman lost the primary to Ned Lamont, though it was clear from what happened in November that more Connecticut voters as a whole preferred Lieberman to Lamont. Exactly the same thing looked to be happening in the Pennsylvania Republican Party, except that Lieberman's option (forming a party to elect him after he lost the primary) was not available to Specter because Pennsylvania law has a "sore-loser" provision (a candidate who loses a party primary cannot run as the candidate of another party). And Specter had to look at the polls which showed him losing a Republican primary, but winning a general election whether he ran as a Republican or a Democrat. So his decision was, I'm sure, a painful one, but a logical one.


Arlen Specter, despite the party enrollment change, is still more a Republican than a Democrat. (According to one chart I saw today, only two Republicans in the Senate voted less with their party than Specter, but Specter's percentage of votes with the Republicans was still 65%!) Perhaps he's still going to vote more with the Republicans than with the Democrats, but it is true that he'll be voting to help the Reid/Pelosi Democrats control the Congress. If I'd been living in Pennsylvania, I'd have a difficult choice in November 2010 (as I said yesterday on my blog). Fortunately, I'm not faced with that choice.


The two-party system has one very negative result. It means that within each party there are fights between those, on the one hand, who want their party to be "pure" and take unified stands, and those, on the other han, who want theit party to reach out to the ideological center. I think that Olympia Snowe (one of the two Republicans who voted less with their party than Specter, according to the article I was quoting!) has it right: the Republican party cannot win without its conservatives, but it also cannot win without its moderates.


I've not agreed with some of the people posting on the Range Voting site that abolishing the 2-party system in the U. S. is a great desideratum; I've felt there are good things about having two parties rather than the weakly bound coalitions of countries like Israel. But the two-party system certainly brought about Arlen Specter's dilemma, and as someone who generally has liked Specter's politics, I have to be more sympathetic to those who would change it.

"First Freedom First" - a comment on a book

Recently I began reading a book entitled "First Freedom First," by the Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy and the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the thesis of which is that it is important to maintain the constitutional separation of church and state. And this is a position which merits agreement from me. But in it, the Religious Right is castigated with the following words on p. xxvi of the Introduction:

The Religious Right claims an interest in recovering morality in America by seeking to outlaw all abortions, stem cell research, gay rights, and same-sex unions while advocating the teaching of religious doctrine as sound science. They also advocate, through a system of school vouchers often lauded as a way to help the poor, providing public tax dollars for the funding of public parochial schools. In recent years, the Religious Right has been loud in its advocacy for advancing the president's faith-based initiatives, displaying the Ten Commandments in public buildings, teaching the Bible in public schools, electing "God-chosen" leaders to public offices, and supporting the president of the United States in sopeaking and acting as the chief religious leader of the nation. However, the Religious Right has been strangely silent on the war in Iraq, increases in the numbers of people without adequate medical care and health insurance, the torture of prisoners, ... [I leave out the rest of this sentence, because it is really the part I quote here that I want to address]

When I read the first two of these sentences, I was willing to accept what Gaddy (the author of this introduction) says. But then I hit the third sentence. Obviously, Gaddy (I can't speak for Lynn, as he didn't write these words, but if he is willing to have his name on the book as co-author, I can't imagine he disavows them) seems to think that one of the purposes of his book is to advocate for our having left Saddam Hussein in power to gas the Kurds and threaten Israel with missiles, for our adoption of a socialized-medicine scheme (because most people talking about "increases in the numbers of people without adequate medical care and health insurance" seem to advocate such schemes), etc. And with this sentence he lost me.

What in the name of all that matters in this universe do "the war in Iraq" and "increases in the numbers of people without adequate medical care and health insurance" have to do with religious freedom? And what business do these points have in a book on preserving our First Amendment rights?

Up till that sentence, I might have favorably reviewed this book. But it is clear that Gaddy and Lynn have their own ideology to pursue, not merely advocating a religiously-neutral, even secular, government (with which I concur), but a left-wing, even socialistic political agenda. And with that I take issue.

The myth of "the Palestinian people"

Once more, Arabs are killing Israelis in the Middle East. And some of those Arabs are actually getting support from the outside world under the pretense of the need for the "Palestinians" for their own homeland! History tells us that there is no such thing as a "Palestinian," so who are these "Palestinians" who claim the right to a homeland?

First of all, let it be made clear that until 1948 nobody anywhere claimed to be a "Palestinian." If you had asked the ancestors of today's murderous Arab terrorists their nationality in those early days, they might have said "Arab," or perhaps "Syrian," or going back earlier, "citizen of the Ottoman (Turkish) Empire," but nobody in those days ever called himself a "Palestinian." The only people who even used the word "Palestine" to describe the territory were the British and — oddly — the Jews! (The name "Israel" had not yet been chosen, and the Jews were trying to decide on a name for it!)

There has never been an indigenous people in the area who called this territory "Palestine." The earliest people we know of in the region were the Canaanites, who lived there before Moses led the Jewish people out from Egypt. When the Jews settled there, it became "Judea." The name "Palestine" ("Palaestina" in Latin) was given to this territory by the Romans, when they defeated the Jews in battle and took over the land. (They gave the territory this name so they could claim it was not the Jews' land; the name came from the name of the Philistines, a people whose land was nearby. From the Wikipedia description of their territory, it would appear that a small portion of present-day Israel was inhabited by the Philistines; most of their territory was in today's Gaza Strip.) And from then until 1948, the territory was somebody's colony; the last two countries to control the territory before 1948 were the Turks and the British.

In 1918, the British took this territory away from the Turks, and first established a territory known as Palestine, which they governed under a mandate from the League of Nations. In August 1922, the Palestine mandate was split into two; one part was called "Transjordan," and is today the Kingdom of Jordan. So when someone speaks of "Palestine," it is not really clear whether they mean 1918-22 Palestine (which includes Jordan) or 1922-1948 Palestine (which does not).

In any case, "Palestine" in the 20^th century simply was a term for the British mandated territory. Some Arabs in the area wanted it all incorporated in one pan-Arab state that included such current nations as Iraq and Saudi Arabia. Others wanted smaller nations; most considered that this territory would belong to a greater Syria that would include today's Lebanon and Iraq. But nobody considered Palestine (in either the 1918-1922 version or the 1922-1948 version) a nation in its own right.

In 1947, the United Nation passed a resolution dividing this 1922-1948 version of Palestine (which was only a third of the 1918-1922 version!) into two parts, which it might be noted were simply referred to as a "Jewish state" and an "Arab state." Nobody envisioned, even then, the Arab state as being called "Palestine" — that was still just a name for the British colony!

But in any case, the Arabs were not satisfied with just a piece of the Palestine mandate; they wanted it all. So they started a war with the Jews, and by the time the fighting ceased, the Jews ended up with slightly more territory than the UN had awarded them in 1947. This became the State of Israel.

For a number of years, the Arabs kept picking wars with Israel; the Jews kept winning those wars. And ultimately, the Arabs invented a new myth: the myth of a "Palestinian people" evicted from their land by the Israelis. There never was such a thing; there were Arabs, no different in any way from their neighbors in Jordan, Lebanon, and Syria, who thought of themselves as one group, and since the boundaries between these nations had been created by the British and French after World War I, the national identities of these people were not very strong. But by inventing this "Palestinian" nationality, they came up with a group that needed its own homeland, or so they proclaimed.

But who are these "Palestinians"? The people of a national group have something in common. The French speak French, and differ from the French-speaking Swiss and Belgians by having had allegiance to a government that has existed for centuries. The Swiss speak four different languages, but these people signed a constitutional document that bound them together in 1848, and so they have built themselves a nation (In fact, of course, groups of what now are Swiss had bound themselves into a nation in the 13^th century, so they can be considered to have been building this nation for that long!) I challenge anyone to define a "Palestinian" for me -- neither language, nor religion, nor anything else defines a "Palestinian," except that it is an Arab who happened to have been governed by the British mandatory authority between 1922 and 1948 or a descendant of such a person. This hardly defines a nationality!

The Jews are united by religion. The Canadians are united by history; they have built a nation since 1867. But in no sense can the "Palestinians" be united as a people. Let us just avoid this word "Palestinian" — it is totally meaningless!

Academic freedom and political correctness

Today I read something in the paper that made my blood boil. A clerk at the co-op at the University of Maryland (OK, not an official University organ, but one that gets support from the University) refused to serve a student who was wearing a "We Stand for Israel" shirt. (See http://www.examiner.com/a-883729~The_speech_police_at_Maryland.html ) While the student eventually did get served, after much argument, the student apparently found it necessary (or was convinced) to apologize to the clerk! Apparently it's just fine to be an anti-Semite; I'm sure that no clerk could have gotten away with that kind of behavior to a customer wearing a "Black Power" shirt.

As the editorial shows, political correctness has trumped academic freedom.