Israel’s Actions: Entirely Lawful

Israel’s Actions: Entirely Lawful

Posted By Alan M. Dershowitz On June 2, 2010 @ 12:08 am In FrontPage | 28 Comments

While the international community has, once again, ganged up on Israel, one thing is for certain: the legality of Israel’s actions in stopping the Gaza flotilla is not open to question. What Israel did was entirely consistent with both international and domestic law. In order to understand why Israel acted within its rights, the complex events at sea must be deconstructed:

First, there is the Israeli blockade of Gaza, which included a naval blockade. Recall that when Israel ended its occupation of Gaza, it did not impose a blockade. Indeed it left behind agricultural facilities in the hope that the newly liberated Gaza Strip would become a peaceful and productive area. Instead Hamas seized control over Gaza and engaged in acts of warfare against Israel. These acts of warfare featured anti-personnel rockets, nearly 10,000 of them, directed at Israeli civilians. This was not only an act of warfare, it was a war crime. Israel responded to the rockets by declaring a blockade, the purpose of which was to assure that no rockets, or other material that could be used for making war against Israeli civilians, was permitted into Gaza. Israel allowed humanitarian aid through its checkpoints. Egypt as well participated in the blockade. There was never a humanitarian crisis in Gaza, merely a shortage of certain goods that would end if the rocket attacks ended.

The legality of blockades as a response to acts of war is not subject to serious doubt. When the United States blockaded Cuba during the missile crisis, the State Department issued an opinion declaring the blockade to be lawful. This, despite the fact that Cuba had not engaged in any act of belligerency against the United States. Other nations have similarly enforced naval blockades to assure their own security.

The second issue is whether it is lawful to enforce a legal blockade in international waters. Again, law and practice are clear. If there is no doubt that the offending ships have made a firm determination to break the blockade, then the blockade may be enforced before the offending ships cross the line into domestic waters. Again the United States and other western countries have frequently boarded ships at high sea in order to assure their security.

Third, were those on board the flotilla innocent non-combatants or did they lose that status once they agreed to engage in the military act of breaking the blockade? Let there be no mistake about the purpose of this flotilla. It was decidedly not to provide humanitarian aid to the residents of Gaza, but rather the break the entirely lawful Israeli military blockade. The proof lies in the fact that both Israel and Egypt offered to have all the food, medicine and other humanitarian goods sent to Gaza, if the boats agreed to land in an Israeli or Egyptian port. That humanitarian offer was soundly rejected by the leaders of the flotilla who publicly announced:

“This mission is not about delivering humanitarian supplies, it’s about breaking Israel’s siege on 1.5 million Palestinians.” (AFP May 27, 2010.)

The act of breaking a military siege is itself a military act, and those knowingly participating in such military action put in doubt their status as non-combatants.

It is a close question whether “civilians” who agree too participate in the breaking of a military blockade have become combatants. They are certainly something different than pure, innocent civilians, and perhaps they are also somewhat different from pure armed combatants. They fit uncomfortably onto the continuum of civilianality that has come to characterize asymmetrical warfare.

Finally, we come to the issue of the right of self defense engaged in by Israeli soldiers who were attacked by activists on the boat. There can be little doubt that the moment any person on the boat picked up a weapon and began to attack Israeli soldiers boarding the vessel, they lost their status as innocent civilians. Even if that were not the case, under ordinary civilian rules of self defense, every Israeli soldier had the right to protect himself and his colleagues from attack by knife and pipe wielding assailants. Less there be any doubt that Israeli soldiers were under attack, simply view the accompanying video and watch, as so-called peaceful “activists” repeatedly pummel Israeli soldiers with metal rods. (http://www.youtube.com/user/idfnadesk) Every individual has the right to repel such attacks by the use of lethal force, especially when the soldiers were so outnumbered on the deck of the ship. Recall that Israel’s rules of engagement required its soldiers to fire only paintballs unless their lives were in danger. Would any country in the world deny its soldiers the right of self defense under comparable circumstances?

Notwithstanding the legality of Israel’s actions, the international community has, as usual, denounced the Jewish state. In doing so, Israel’s critics have failed to pinpoint precisely what Israel did that allegedly violates international law. Some have wrongly focused on the blockade itself. Others have erroneously pointed to the location of the boarding in international waters. Most have simply pointed to the deaths of so-called peace activists, though these deaths appear to be the result of lawful acts of self-defense. None of these factors alone warrant condemnation, but the end result surely deserves scrutiny by Israeli policy makers. There can be little doubt that the mission was a failure, as judged by its results. It is important, however, to distinguish between faulty policies on the one hand, and alleged violations of international law on the other hand. Only the latter would warrant international intervention, and the case has simply not been made that Israel violated international law.

WITH JEWISH SUPPORT FOR THE PRESIDENT PLUMMETING, OBAMA LAUNCHES CHARM OFFENSIVE: Netanyahu invited to White House

 

WITH JEWISH SUPPORT FOR THE PRESIDENT PLUMMETING, OBAMA LAUNCHES CHARM OFFENSIVE: Netanyahu invited to White House

By Joel C. Rosenberg

(Washington, D.C., May 28, 2010) — President Obama’s support with the American Jewish community is plunging due to his administration’s hostility towards Israel over the past year. A full 78% of Americans Jews voted for Obama in 2008. But now a stunning new poll finds 46% of Jews are actively considering voting for someone else in 2012. Only 42% say they would vote to re-elect Obama.

On April 15, Ronald S. Lauder, president of the World Jewish Congress, sent a letter to Mr. Obama expressing rarely heard before public concern by the Jewish community over the actions of a Democratic President. In it, he expressed “alarm” over “the dramatic deterioration of diplomatic relations between the United States and Israel.” He also publicly criticized the administration for beginning to turn against Israel, a longtime friend and strategic ally. “Why does the thrust of this Administration’s Middle East rhetoric seem to blame Israel for the lack of movement on peace talks?” asked Lauder. “After all, it is the Palestinians, not Israel, who refuse to negotiate.”

The following week, Sen. Chuck Schumer, the Jewish Democrat from New York, publicly blasted the Obama administration for it’s “counter-productive” approach towards Israel and towards Iran.

There are no indications that President Obama has decided to change his policies. He still wants to force Israel to divide Jerusalem. He still wants to force Israel to give away the strategically critical West Bank and Jordan Valley to the Palestinians who still refuse to sit down and negotiate with Israel face to face. He is still doing nothing decisive or effective to stop Iran from getting the Bomb. He still wants to force Israel not to launch a pre-emptive strike against Iran’s nuclear sites. Most recently, he has begun trying to force Israel to disclose and then dismantle its (thus unacknowledged) defensive nuclear weapons, which would leave the Jewish State naked and vulnerable against genocidal enemies.

That said, the President and his administration have recently launched a charm offensive with Israel and the Jewish community, trying to undo the enormous damage that has been caused in the relationship between both countries by the White House’s hostility in recent months. Examples:

* Next week, President Obama will host Prime Minister Netanyahu at the White House
* This week, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel took his family to vacation in Israel and to do a bar mitvah for his son
* Last week, rabbis were wined and dined at the White House
* Last week, President Obama held an hour and a half meeting with Jewish Democratic Members of Congress

It’s because they want to kill us, stupid.

It’s Because They Want To Kill Us, Stupid

2010 May 6

The night the NYC car bomb attempt went down, I was so grateful that, once again, the diligence of the public and the swift action of the NYC Police thwarted yet another potential attack. Shortly thereafter, while still incredibly grateful obviously, I became angry. I’ve had it. Firstly, because the current strategy of homeland security seems to be “Hey, guys, we’ve totally unclenched our fists. We can haz cookie now?” Secondly, because the left and their media lackeys are not only dangerously naive, but also purposefully misleading.

They are so deeply invested in both political correctness and in their violent, racist “tea baggers” meme, it clouds all else. Even common sense and the security of our country. It was swiftly apparent that they were *wishing* that the failed bomber was a tea partier, so that they could further their lame narrative and continue to try to excuse Obama and his administration for their failures and utter incompetence. Gee, Obama, how is that “unclenching of fists” deal working out for you?

That night, Attorney General Holder said “It’s important that American people remain vigilant.” Sadly, it’s quite clear that the administration and many on the left refuse to do the same; unless it’s remaining vigilant in their pursuit of demagoguing Republicans. It’s gotten to the point where I was honestly waiting for the release of a statement from Obama, consisting of a sternly worded apology and claims that he inherited the bomber, Faisal Shahzad, from Bush.

Michael Bloomberg started the insane blame the Republicans at all costs narrative off with a bang. When asked by the elfin Katie Couric for a guess as to who the bomber could be, Bloomberg offered this:

“If I had to guess 25 cents, this would be exactly that. Homegrown, or maybe a mentally deranged person, or somebody with a political agenda that doesn’t like the health care bill or something. It could be anything,” he said.

Oh, yes, Bloomberg. Those violent, hateful health care bill deniers! Man, someone has to stop those dangerously radical thugs! What’s next? The singing of the National Anthem?! Maybe finding photographs of Obama and fiendishly drawing mustaches and devil horns on them in a frenzied rage of rightwing extremism? I’m only surprised that Bloomberg didn’t also suggest that it was probably an evil smoker or salt eater.

When the information was released that the attempted bomber’s name was Faisal Shahzad, the delusional spin intensified. All across (alleged) newsrooms, thoughts of ” Wait; this whole Faisal Shahzad thing must be inaccurate. That doesn’t sound like a health care-hating, “tea bag-y” name” abounded. CNN quickly hypothesized that perhaps Shahzad was a victim of post home foreclosure traumatic syndrome , as a way to mitigate their sorrow over him not being a tea partier. Most tried to do it stealthily and keep the full extent of their sorrow to themselves, but not Contessa Brewer!

I mean the thing is is that and I get frustrated and there was part of me that was hoping this was not going to be anybody with ties to any kind of Islamic country because there are a lot of people who want to use this terrorist intent to justify writing off people who believe in a certain way or come from certain countries or whose skin color is a certain way. I mean they use it as justification for really outdated bigotry. And so there was part of me was really hoping this would not be the case that here would be somebody who is not the defined.

No, really. It’s on video. I think that Contessa Brewer should be more frustrated and oh-so-sad by the fact that she’s, you know, Contessa Brewer. I also think she should just stop talking. Now. I’m certain the two people who watch her network can somehow manage to muddle through without her “insight.” This was all topped off by the CBS/AP headline today:

Faisal Shahzad’s Motive Shrouded in Mystery

Hey, media, you know what might help uncover the shrouded mystery? How about you try mentioning the word “Muslim” or “Islam”? Even just once. Note, it doesn’t appear anywhere in that entire article. And the omission of either word has been glaring in all accounts. Well, except for one. When that bastion of stupidity, Mayor Bloomberg, spoke out, not against the perpetrator of the crime, but pre-emptively against American citizens; the potential victims of a terrorist attack. (Via allahpundit)

Mayor Michael Bloomberg says New York City “will not tolerate any bias” following the arrest of a U.S. citizen from Pakistan in the Times Square car bombing attempt.

Bloomberg said Tuesday that also applies to potential backlash against Muslim New Yorkers.

Sigh. Listen, everyone has the right to be stupid, but you, Mayor Bloomberg, totally abuse the privilege. It is rather telling that the only time the word Muslim or Islam is even acknowledged is when the rest of us are being accused of being racist half-wits.

Andrew Breitbart summed it up, in a nutshell, in his response to Contessa Brewer who, while personally astoundingly mockable, really just epitomizes leftist thought as a whole. He asked if she was aware that “tea baggers” would save her life, while Islamists want to take it.

That’s the crux of their willful ignorance right there; sometimes, being an Islamic terrorist IS the motive itself. As Leon de Winter wrote at Pajamas Media, “Faisal Shahzad is a Muslim terrorist motivated to kill by his religion, not by the loss of his house to the bank.”

 Instead of busily demonizing American citizens, apologizing to those who wish to kill us, and frantically avoiding perceived “profiling” out of the insane fear of looking non-politically correct, they should learn that lesson.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Political correctness is no longer just annoying. It’s deadly.

It’s because they want to kill us, stupid.

Obama Stands with Muslims as He Promised

Obama Stands with Muslims as He Promised

By Kyle-Anne Shiver

Now that Barack Obama is well into his presidency, it’s clear that he is keeping at least one promise he made. He is standing with the Muslims.
In his chapter on “Race” in The Audacity of Hope, then-Senator Obama devoted a section to his post-9/11 concerns over the treatment of Muslim Americans. He makes special mention of meetings he had with Arab- and Pakistani-Americans, drawing attention to the “urgent quality” these meetings had taken after the 9/11 attacks on the WTC.
[T]he stories of detentions and FBI questioning and hard stares from neighbors have shaken their [Arab- and Pakistani-Americans’] sense of security and belonging. They have been reminded that the history of immigration in this country has a dark underbelly; they need specific assurances that their citizenship really means something, that America has learned the right lessons from the Japanese internments during World War II, and that I will stand with them should the political winds shift in an ugly direction. [Emphasis mine.]
 – Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope, p. 261
One Pakistani-American just learned that his citizenship meant a great deal of unmolested access to a whole host of possible terror victims. And since President Obama has taken a number of measures to ensure that no Muslim American feels “profiled” in any connection to terror plots, I think we can freely assume that until his arrest on board an Emirates airplane two days ago, Faisal Shahzad felt just as welcome and loved here as he did in the country of his birth and at his favorite mosque. As a naturalized American citizen, Faisal Shahzad moved freely, completely under the radar of any law enforcement entity or terror-watch agency.
Shahzad’s bank knew far more about him than our so-called national security people. Our national security employees are those folks making big bucks to find people like Shahzad before they have a chance to blow any of us real American citizens to kingdom come. However, as was the case with the Ft. Hood terrorist, our national security and military personnel have become quite skittish in appearing to make any connection between the Muslim religion/political ideology and worldwide terrorism. Therefore, they don’t look at the obvious until it is too late. Instead, resources are being squandered in the president’s witch hunt against Tea Party grandmas and kiddies and middle-class homemakers and dads, all waving their American flags.     
Shahzad’s real estate agent even knew something of this Pakistani’s politics. Shahzad virulently hated President Bush and vociferously denounced the Iraq War, just as Barack Obama and the Democrats in Congress did. 
From Shahzad’s outspoken hatred of Bush and the Iraq War, we can deduce that Shahzad was most likely in full agreement with John Kerry’s assertion that our troops were “terrorizing” Iraqi women and children in their homes in the “dead of night.” Shahzad was most likely nodding his head the day that late Rep. John Murtha (D-PA) publicly convicted — without a shred of evidence — the Haditha Marines of “cold-blooded murder.” Those Marines, of course, have since been exonerated, but as their acquittals didn’t receive nearly the media attention as the charges against them, I doubt Shahzad even knew the Marines were innocent of killing his fellow Muslim civilians in murderous with no cause. 
We can also infer that Shahzad may have even cheered the day he saw the video of Rep. Harkin (D-IA) standing in the floor of the once-great American Congress and screamed at his fellow representatives: “You don’t have money to fund the war or children. But you’re going to spend it to blow up innocent people if we can get enough kids to grow old enough for you to send to Iraq to get their heads blown off for the president’s amusement.” I doubt Faisal Shahzad was amused by this rant; he was most likely incensed.
Once Obama was elected, and as Obama had professed his intention to “stand with the Muslims,” Shahzad may have expected an immediate end to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. When Obama did not perform as expected, then perhaps Shahzad felt an urgent need to strike out at America, “the great Satan.”    
Shahzad’s work visas, prior to his request for citizenship being granted, were in the skilled-labor areas. He was a financial analyst, having earned two degrees at U.S. universities. He seems to have gone completely unnoticed by professors, who do not even remember him. Or perhaps, following this president’s lead, these professors are simply refusing to remember any references their student may have made regarding his political/religious extremism.
Shahzad bought a house and lived an apparently quiet, unobtrusive lifestyle…that is, until he spent eight months out of the country, in Pakistan’s Taliban-controlled hinterland.
Now, Faisal Shahzad is commonly referred to as the would-be Times Square Bomber. Yes, as his name and heritage indicate, he is a Muslim.
And yes, President Obama is standing with him. Though the president is taking great public pains to appear tough on terror and the real terrorists — as opposed to the imaginary ones (i.e., conservatives and Tea Partiers) — Barack Obama has actually gone to great lengths to make sure others like Shahzad remain utterly undisturbed. Others who at this very minute remain undetected among us, ready to strike on orders from radicalized Imams or terror-army chiefs, walk among us, now knowing that they have a true friend and protector in the White House. Barack Obama has successfully purged from the national discourse on terrorism — excuse me, “man-made disasters” — any mention of the religion/political ideology which is the undeniable common denominator.
Carefully protecting feelings can be a priority of a mommy tending her babies. Protecting a group’s feelings at the expense of a nation’s real safety is a huge no-no for a Commander in Chief. And if Barack Obama would prefer to be the nurturing mommy to all Muslims, he ought to resign from the presidency. Trying to be both a mommy to Muslim sensibilities and to perform adequately as our president is a losing formula for every real peace-loving American citizen.
It’s a terrible thing when Americans have to face the day not only needing to know where their own children are, but also asking the haunting question:  Do you know where your Muslim neighbor is, and what he’s up to?
We have to ask that question now because our president and his people will not.
So in the end, Barack Obama has brought about the exact scenario he has worked so hard to avoid. If Americans were assured that our president and our national security employees are doing the necessary watching and profiling, then we would also know we don’t have to do it. We could be nice, hospitable, and open to our American Muslim neighbors and coworkers. 
But when we know that the people paid to fight terrorism refuse to see the obvious, then we are necessarily put on high alert. We take on their jobs. We watch. We stare. We shy from the company of those we know might become our worst nightmare.
Kyle-Anne Shiver is a frequent contributor to American Thinker. She welcomes your comments at www.kyleanneshiver.com.

The crux of Islam’s hatred against the Jews

The crux of Islam’s hatred against the Jews

Jerry Philipson

The Wall Street Journal is reporting that the United States and Egypt are discussing an agreement which would see the Middle East, including Israel and Iran, become a nuclear free zone. The Daily Telegraph newspaper in England reports that President Obama is threatening to turn the peace process over to the international community if it remains deadlocked until the fall. In the meantime there may or may not be a resumption of talks on Monday, depending on who you’re listening to.

All of this ignores the most salient factor of all.

Peace between Israel and the Palestinians is not possible because Islam won’t permit it and militates against it.

Islam is a religion of intolerance toward unbelievers, with perhaps the most hatred reserved for Jews because of their ancient refusal to recognize Muhammad as the last and greatest prophet and Allah as the supreme being.

This hatred of Jews translates into a hatred of Israel, which in turn translates into an obligation to obliterate it and remove it from the face of the earth. When Palestinians and other Muslims demonize, vilify, attack and kill Israelis, Jews, they are really doing so in the name of Islam and because Islam commands them to. Israelis, Jews, are infidels and are seen as occupiers and interlopers at best with no right to the land they live on, historical or otherwise. Their presence is viewed as an affront and an insult.

Nothing will change until these misguided beliefs do. Since they go back 1400 years, are rooted in the Koran and are basic to Islamic thought and action peace is not going to come soon, if it ever does. The best we can hope for is some sort of grudging ceasefire, enforced by a third party that isn’t the United Nations. Islam itself is the cause of the conflict in the Middle East and there is no possibility of peace until Islamic countries recognize and accept Israel’s legitimate right to exist and stop trying to annihilate it. That is a contradiction of terms so don’t hold your breath.

Israel ignores or glosses over this at her peril and so does the U.S. Israel is the Little Satan but America is the Great Satan and also in the line of fire.

Peace? Forget it in this day and age. Maybe in another 1400 years though… 

Obama’s 5 Big Lies About Israel

Obama’s 5 Big Lies About Israel 

Monday, April 26, 2010

  By Daniel Greenfield

In preparation for his attempt to impose a final solution on Israel, Obama is spreading a variety of lies through the media and his spokesmen about Israel. And by exposing those lies, we can best get at the truth.

1. Netanyahu Must Choose Between Obama and his Right Wing

What Obama’s people would like you to believe here is that all it would take to restore good relations with the Obama Administration is for Netanyahu to reject the “extremists” and do what Obama tells him to do.

But in fact the vast majority of Israelis support Netanyahu’s position that Jews have the right to live anywhere in Jerusalem, and oppose Obama’s position that Jews have no right to live or build homes in parts of Jerusalem that were seized by Jordan in 1948 and ethnically cleansed of Jews.

Netanyahu’s real choice is between Obama and the vast majority of his country’s voters. By demanding that he turn his back on them and do what Obama says, the real demand here is for Netanyahu to completely disregard Israel’s democracy, and betray his own electorate, and enact Apartheid in Jerusalem. This will supposedly appease Obama. And all Netanyahu has to do is disregard the Israeli people’s wishes in favor of DC’s wishes.

So Netanyahu must choose between Obama and democracy. And the media is blasting him because he chose democracy over Obama.

2. Obama Wants Netanyahu’s Right Wing Coalition to be More Centrist

More centrist. Really? Netanyahu’s current coalition includes the left wing Labor party, an immigrant’s rights party and the party of Sefardi Jews. It even has an Arab Muslim Deputy Minister.

So what is Obama’s idea of a centrist Israeli government? One that jettisons Shas, the party of Jewish refugees from Muslim countries, and Yisrael Beitenu, the party of Jewish refugees from the USSR– in favor of Kadima, an illegitimately created party headed by Tzipi Livni, a former member of Netanyahu’s own Likud party. How is a coalition with Kadima more “centrist” than a coalition with the Labor party and parties that represent Israel’s different minorities? The answer is it isn’t. The only thing “centrist” about Kadima, is that Tzipi Livni airheadedly endorses every Obama proposal, which hasn’t exactly made her popular in the country. But it has made her popular with Obama, who wants to force her into a coalition with Netanyahu.

If you believe the Washington talking heads, Livni will make Netanyahu’s coalition more centrist than former Labor Prime Minister Ehud Barack. This despite the fact that Kadima officials have repeatedly stated they will not enter any coalition headed by Netanyahu.

Let me emphasize this again. Obama’s people are trying to force Netanyahu to drop two parties, one of Jewish refugees from Muslim countries and another of Jewish refugees from Communist countries– (it’s not too hard to figure out why Obama would dislike both) in order to form a more “centrist” coalition with a former member of his own party.

3. Tensions Between Obama and Israel Were Caused by Netanyahu’s “Insult” Toward Biden

The truth is that the relationship between Obama and Israel has always been bad. And that’s not surprising. Obama was a longtime member of a church whose pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright portrayed Israel in terms reminiscent of Nazi newspapers. He was friends with Rashid Khalidi who was a spokesman for the PLO terrorist organization. His own background as a child was in the Muslim world, where Israel is viewed as nothing short of the devil.

Once elected, Obama made his first phone call to current PLO head and Holocaust denier, Mahmoud Abbas. And it didn’t take long for the administration to begin making demands of Israel, and then refusing to accept any compromises. All this was long before Biden paid a brief visit to Israel, and pretended to be outraged because potential housing on an empty plot of land in Jerusalem went through one part of a multi-stage approvals process.

Was Biden offended by this as a demonstration of Israeli sovereignty in Jerusalem? Not likely since Biden himself had co-sponsored no less than three Senate resolutions in support of a United Jerusalem under Israeli rule. If we are to believe that Biden was offended, then he was offended by policies he himself supported.

The truth of the matter is that the Obama Administration was looking to pick a fight and waited for an incident that they could claim was an Israeli provocation. Israel didn’t insult America, Biden or Obama by approving possible housing to be built in Jerusalem. Rather Obama who had always disliked Israel, took the chance to pick a fight, while pretending to be the victim.

4. Netanyahu Must Come Back to the Negotiating Table

What negotiating table? Israel has spent almost two decades at the negotiating table. It has given up land and put even its own capital on the table under Prime Minister Barak (currently a member of Netanyahu’s “Right Wing” coalition. The Palestinian Arabs have never put anything on the table. They have taken and taken.

Netanyahu has already agreed to freeze home building in Judea and Samaria. Checkpoints have been dismantled, despite the fact that this allows terrorists to slip through and murder Israelis. Israel has repeatedly offered to go back to the negotiating table. It is Abbas, the first foreign leader that Obama spoke to, who refuses to negotiate. Not only that Abbas has asked Obama to impose a solution.

If Abbas wants Obama to impose a solution. And Obama wants to impose a solution. Then what is there left to negotiate? The exact place where Obama will impose his solution. This argument is a cynical ploy to blame Israel for not wanting to negotiate, when in fact Israel is the only party in this conflict that wants to negotiate and that has consistently tried to negotiate.

But neither Obama nor Abbas are interested in negotiations. They only want Israel to obey their demands.

5. Israel is Costing the US Blood and Treasure

The US has fought three wars since Vietnam. Each of those wars were fought on behalf of, or against Muslims. In the Gulf War, the US responded to Saddam’s invasion of its Kuwaiti allies with armed force. In Yugoslavia, the US intervened on behalf of Kosovar Albanian Muslims. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US overthrew Muslim dictatorships and tried to stabilize the two countries.

It is Islam that has cost the US an untold fortune in blood and treasure. It is Muslims that have dragged the US into three wars. In the Gulf War, the US was responding to an invasion of Muslim Kuwait. In Yugoslavia, the US was responding to the supposed ethnic cleansing of Albanian Muslims. In Afghanistan and Iraq, the US was fighting back against an Al Queda attack, motivated by the presence of a US base in Saudi Arabia, and in Iraq, against Saddam Hussein’s continuing defiance of sanctions.

Thousands of Americans dead and hundreds of billions of dollars. Now that’s real blood and treasure. And the toll keeps on climbing. But in truth the first “Blood and Treasure” extracted by Muslims from America predated the modern State of Israel. Instead it took place on the “Shores of Tripoli” as President Thomas Jefferson chose to go to war with the Muslim pirates who were raiding American ships and enslaving American sailors, because they viewed them as subhuman infidels.

Of course the Obama Administration which has banned any mention of Islamic terrorism, can’t possibly address any of that. All it can do is direct false smears at Israel.

Daniel Greenfield is a columnist born in Israel and currently living in New York City. He is a contributing editor at Family Security Matters and writes a daily blog column on Islamic Terrorism, Israeli and American politics and Europe’s own clash of civilizations which can be found at Sultanknish.blogspot.com.

VIDEO: Obama’s National Security Advisor Tells Joke Depicting Jews as Greedy Merchants…

Obama’s National Security Advisor Tells Joke Depicting Jews as Greedy Merchants

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmUb_cXI5aI&feature=player_embedded