Netanyahu and the “otherwise enlightened” by Caroline Gllick

Sometimes, nothing is more infuriating than the truth.

On Friday, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu infuriated the Obama administration when he told the truth about the nature of the internationally supported Palestinian demand that Israel must transfer control over Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem to the Palestinians Jew-free.

In a video address posted to his Facebook page at around dawn Washington time, Netanyahu said, “The Palestinian leadership… demands a Palestinians state with one precondition: No Jews.

“There’s a phrase for that. It’s called ‘ethnic cleansing.’ And this demand is outrageous.”

Netanyahu then turned his fire on the so-called international community that supports this bigoted demand.

“It’s even more outrageous that the world doesn’t find this outrageous,” he said, adding, “Some otherwise enlightened countries even promote this outrage.”

Later that day, Associated Press correspondent Matt Lee asked US State Department spokeswoman Elizabeth Trudeau what the administration thought of Netanyahu’s statement.

Apparently turning to a prepared text, Trudeau declaimed robotically and emphatically, “We obviously strongly disagree with the characterization that those who oppose settlement activity or view it as an obstacle to peace are somehow calling for ethnic cleansing of Jews from the West Bank.
“We believe that using that type of terminology is inappropriate and unhelpful….We share the view of every past US administration and the strong consensus of the international community that ongoing settlement activity is an obstacle to peace. We continue to call on both sides to demonstrate with actions and policies a genuine commitment to the two-state solution.”

The only thing missing from Trudeau’s response was an explanation of why Netanyahu was wrong. She didn’t explain, nor was she asked, how the US’s opposition to Israel’s respect for Jewish Israelis’ property rights in these areas squares with her denial that its policy supports ethnic cleansing.

To make this point a bit more clearly, here are a few questions that Trudeau was neither asked nor explained on her own, but whose answers are self-evident from the administration’s apoplectic response to every move by Israel to permit Jews to lawfully build homes in Judea, Samaria and unified Jerusalem.

• In the US government’s view, does Israel have the right to pass laws or ordinances for land use in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria? If not, why not?

• And if you do respect Israel’s right to issue rules on land use, why do you oppose the destruction of illegally built structures in Susiya? Why do you oppose the legal purchase of land by Jews in the so-called outposts?

• Under what circumstances is it legal for Jews to buy land beyond the 1949 armistice lines in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria?

• Under what circumstances is it legal for Jews to build homes for themselves in these areas?

Through its consistently stated and deliberately applied policy of totally rejecting all rights of Jewish Israelis to live and build in these areas, from its first days in office, the Obama administration has made clear that it rejects the civil rights of Jews as Jews in these areas and seeks the complete negation of their rights through mass expulsion, property seizure and destruction, that is, through ethnic cleansing.

As Trudeau noted, the Obama administration’s support for the ethnic cleansing of Jews is a continuation (and radicalization) of the policies of its predecessors.

Netanyahu’s statement flummoxed the administration because no Israeli leader has ever stated the obvious bigotry of the US position regarding the so-called settlements so pointedly.

To the contrary, for much of the past 20 years, in a futile attempt to mobilize international support Israel, it has been the consistent policy of successive Israeli governments to ignore the anti-Semitic bigotry at the heart of “otherwise enlightened” nations’ rejection of Jewish civil rights.

The problem for Israeli leaders has been that the so-called “two-state solution” which successive governments have been strong-armed by “otherwise enlightened countries” into supporting is predicated on the ethnic cleansing of Jews.

You cannot have a “two-state solution” unless Israel forcibly expels more than a half million Jews from their homes in Judea, Samaria and Jerusalem.

In his remarks, Netanyahu argued that it is impossible to base peace on bigotry. And of course he is right. Israel’s withdrawal from Gaza in 2005 proved his point.

Eleven years ago, with the support of ideologically driven jurists and journalists and the Bush administration, then prime minister Ariel Sharon suspended the rule of law in Israel when he denied the due process rights of 10,000 Israelis lawfully residing in lands to which they had legal title in Gaza and northern Samaria, and denied their supporters’ the right to lawfully protest his policies.

Far from convincing the Palestinians or their “otherwise enlightened” supporters of Israel’s commitment to peace, Sharon’s actions convinced them that there is no downside to supporting ethnic cleansing of Jews in furtherance of a Jew-free Palestine.

Hamas’s victory in the Palestinian elections the following year, and the Bush and later Obama administrations’ increasingly extreme rejections of Jewish rights across the board in Jerusalem, Judea and Samaria proved that limited enactment of ethnic cleansing of Jews merely whets the “otherwise enlightened” nations’ appetite for more.

Rather than point out this state of affairs, until last Friday, Israel’s leaders pretended it away. And then, all of the sudden, Netanyahu decided to overturn the applecart.

Lee asked Trudeau whether the administration was demanding that Netanyahu “walk back” his statement. Trudeau gave no answer.

But it wouldn’t matter if they were. It is too late.

As Trudeau’s non-denial response showed, Netanyahu’s statement was the truth. The anti-settlement policies of the Obama administration and its predecessors are founded on the anti-Semitic assumption that Jewish civil rights – as opposed to everyone else’s rights, are conditional. When Jewish rights collide with the internationally supported demand for a Jew-free Palestine, Jews and Jewish Israeli governments become “obstacles to peace.” That is, they become evil and therefore deserving of persecution.

As Trudeau was failing to explain how the US’s support for ethnic cleansing was anything other than support for ethnic cleansing, The Jewish Press reported that the administration-supported pro-ethnic cleansing group J Street is lobbying the IRS to trample the civil rights of a group that rejects ethnic cleansing.

According to the report, J Street’s president Jeremy Ben-Ami sent an email to the group’s membership announcing that he is lobbying the IRS to revoke the non-profit status of Regavim. Regavim is a private group that documents illegal Palestinian construction.

Regavim works to convince the courts and the government to enforce land laws without prejudice to Jews and non-Jews alike. For rejecting anti-Jewish bigotry, Ben-Ami wrote, Regavim acts in defiance of US government policy. As a consequence, J Street is seeking to deny Regavim’s American supporters their right to lawfully donate and raise funds on behalf of Regavim’s lawful activities.
Netanyahu’s decision to tell the truth about the anti-Semitic nature of the anti-settlement movement was a watershed event. From now on, leaders from Ramallah to Washington to Brussels will have to account for their anti-Jewish policies.

For the first time, the Israeli government has made clear that there is no distinction between the civil rights of Jews in Tel Aviv, Beit El or New York.

Like every other national, religious, ethnic, racial and other group in the world, Jews have the right to exercise their civil rights to property. And if the Palestinians and their “otherwise enlightened” supporters don’t like it, that’s their problem, not ours.

Originally published in The Jerusalem Post.

Obama “Whips” the Black Community by Davidlhunter

“I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community lets down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election. You want to give me a good send-off? Go vote.” – President Obama at the annual Congressional Black Caucus gala on September 17, 2016.

The “massa” of the White House, Barack Obama, has decreed: ‘A vote for Hillary is a vote for me!’ With the gap evaporating between crooked Clinton and outsider Trump, Mr. Obama is whipping up this crucial voting bloc (which cast ballots for him above 90% in the past two presidential elections).

Obama repeatedly panders to the lowest common denominator, the skin-deep consideration of race. Yet, due directly to his presidency no group has economically suffered more than the black community.

Therefore, Mr. Obama’s audacity in expecting their support (for his would-be successor) is frankly galling. Once again, for this president, everything is about him: a “personal insult”; his “legacy”; giving him a “good send-off.” “Kingly” Obama has lived exceedingly well.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of his fellows—from Chicago and beyond—cannot make the same claim. In one telling example, black youth unemployment was 393% higher than the national average. Further, the poverty rate for the black population is now 25.8%. He pretends these deep-seeded problems, among many, do not exist. That makes him a rank political opportunist (in addition to being the worst president of the modern age).

A new Census report on income and poverty shows 43 million Americans are poor. That’s one in seven: equivalent to every resident in the most populated state of California (38.8 million) plus Oregon (4 million). To add context, 3.2 million families have fallen below the poverty line since Obama assumed office—and 93 million Americans remain unemployed.

Barack Obama’s only concern is preserving his nation-destroying policies. Therefore, he wants to keep all black folks on the Democrat’s poverty plantation (read: subsistence living via big government dependence).

Like Hillary says ‘ignore your lying eyes’ to her wrongdoing, Mr. Obama says ‘ignore your empty pockets.’ That anyone would trust this snake oil salesman—or want a continuation of the disastrous Obama years—is frankly mind-boggling.

He’s played American liberals for suckers from Day One. That includes all black voters blindly heeding the “master’s” call to keep anti-American progressives in power.

David L. Hunter is an Associate Editor at “Capitol Hill Outsider.” He’s on Twitter and blogs at He is published in The Washington Post, The Washington Times, “FrontPage Mag,” and extensively in “Patriot Post,” “Canada Free Press” and “American Thinker.”

The science deniers’ greatest hits by Bill Frezza

Science is a process, not a destination, and must not be immune to falsification by experiment“And yet, it moves.”

Thus muttered Galileo Galilei under his breath, after being forced by the Inquisition to recant his claim
that the Earth moved around the Sun, rather than the other way round. The public vindication of Copernican heliocentrism would have to wait another day.

Today, Galileo’s story is a well-known illustration of the dangers of both unchecked power and declaring
scientific matters “settled.” Yet, throughout history, Galileo wasn’t alone.

Scientists once knew that light moved through space via the luminiferous aether – how else could its
waves travel?

In 1887 Albert Michelson and Edward Morley proved that it wasn’t so, thanks to a “failed”
experiment that was actually designed to conclusively demonstrate the existence of this invisible medium.
Poor Michelson suffered a nervous breakdown when faced with such unexpected results.

In 1931 a book published in Germany, One Hundred Authors against Einstein, defended the “settled
science” of Newtonian physics and proclaimed that Einstein’s theory of relativity was a fraud. Einstein
was reported to have replied, “Why one hundred? If I were wrong, one would have been enough.”

On these pages I recently recounted the story of the early twentieth century belief in Eugenics, a
“science” widely adopted by governments around the world as a basis for social policy – with horrifying

Australian physicians Barry Marshall and Robin Warrens were ridiculed when they hypothesized that
ulcers were caused by microbes, which “every scientist knew” couldn’t survive in stomach acid. Doctors
were sure that peptic ulcers were caused by stress and spicy foods. In frustration, Marshall drank a Petri
dish full of cultured H. pylori, proving the “settled science” wrong.

Hopefully, the Nobel Prize he and Warrens received compensated for the illness that resulted.
And remember the government’s dietary guidelines, including the warnings against salt and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture’s Food Pyramid urging Americans to eat more carbs and fewer fats? That
didn’t work out so well, did it?

We all grew up knowing that life began in the “primordial soup” of the seas, sparked by lightning. A
recent paper in Nature casts doubt on that theory, producing evidence that life may have begun in
hydrothermal vents in the ocean floor. The jury is still out on this one. And that’s the point.

It’s worth keeping the above examples in mind, when someone proclaims that surely we are much smarter
today than we were in the past. That we can finally put our faith in scientific certainty, especially when
journalists and politicians and subsidized scientists tell us that 97 percent of scientists agree on
something. That once consensus is reached among experts, it’s important to stop listening to criticism.

If you have any doubts, just Google up the phrase “Science Says,” and view the parade of claims that
carry that new and improved Good Housekeeping Seal of Infallibility.

Yes, reactionaries on the payroll of nefarious forces insist on reminding us that science is a process, not a
destination. What difference does it make if a hypothesis has been artfully constructed to render itself
immune to falsification by experiment?

Who cares if computer simulations enshrined at the heart of public policy have never made a correct
forecast? How dare anyone imply that billions of dollars in government grant funding create perverse
incentives for researchers to support the party line?

The important thing is that “settled science” can be used to spur the public to act.

And exactly what has the “settled science” of cataclysmic anthropogenic global warming convinced us to

One thing above all: Deliver unprecedented power to politicians, activists and bureaucrats.
Power to commandeer entire industries. Power to pump billions of taxpayer dollars into half-baked
schemes cooked up by crony corporatists. Power to redistribute income on a global scale.
And to maintain this power, when cracks begin to show in the narrative, power to
criminalize dissent, much as the Inquisition did to Galileo.

Real science is characterized by healthy skepticism, relentless questioning, and a constant testing and re-
testing of theories, systems and models. Casting dogma in stone – and then stoning non-believers – is a
hallmark of intolerant religion, not science.

And when we finally wake up from our global warming-inspired public hysteria, our progeny will pat
themselves on the back for being so much more advanced than we were. Before, alas, the cycle repeats

Bill Frezza is a fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute and the host of the
Real Clear Radio Hour.

Steyn: Why Trump is winning

Quote of the Day 09/23/16

“To some, freedom means the opportunity to do what they want to do; to most it means not to do what they do not want to do. It is perhaps true that those who can grow will feel free under any condition.” — Eric Hoffer (1902-1983) American author, philosopher, awarded Presidential Medal of Freedom