Nuclear, anyone?

Submitted by Michael S (United States), Apr 9, 2015 at 12:45

Hello, Richard

Interesting note about Hillary.

You have spoken correctly, except that:

1. I don't think what Obama is doing can be undone, and
2. I don't believe this damage can be "eroded", so to speak, over generations. Cataclysmic change will be required -- as it was after the decadence of the Caesars, and even more so. You do realize, of course, what this cataclysmic change meant to the Jews in 70 CE

Barack Hussein Obama is not a dictator who seized power in the coup, like Julius Caesar crossing the Rubicon. He was freely elected by the American people in 2008, and they confirmed their choice in 2012. Obama's job approval rating has been essentially steady since 2010, even after all the recent foreign policy disasters.

You don't seem to have much faith that America will reject "Obama with a facelift" (i.e. Alinsky devotee Hillary Clinton) in 2016, and I agree. The latest polls show Clinton beating or competitive with all the Republican hopefuls; and after the latter beat each other up in the primaries, the Dems turn on their money machine and the liberal press does its snow job, it looks as though she'll get in, barring some misfortune. And if misfortune comes to Hillary, the Dems are as likely as not to turn out a sympathy vote for her replacement -- with the American Jewish voters leading the pack.

The above analysis assumes that the 2016 election will be much like past elections: The "Tea Party", the only group with solid pro-Israel credentials, already has so many probable candidates, that there will probably be a "flavor of the month" phenomenon just as there was in 2012 -- a problem the Dems are completely immune to. Add funding from the fabulously wealthy, such as Romney received around Primary time in 2012, and you can be pretty certain that the Republican nominee will be "Tweedle Dee" to Hillary's "Tweedle Dum" -- so that even in the off chance that the Republicans win, we will see more of the same in American policy toward Israel.

Remember that it was Republican George W. Bush that made the "Two State Solution" official American policy, and made the Israeli delegation enter through the servants' entrance at Anapolis. Clinton (the other one -- I forget his name) gave away the Israeli store in 2000, but Arafat refused to accept it; and "Read my Lips", "New World Order" Bush 41 made the Israelis a punch bag for Saddam's SKUDs while he fought for the Arabs in Iraq. Reagan, of course, intervened to thwart an Israeli victory in Lebanon (only to see our own troops massacred by Hizbullah); Carter is and was a raging anti-Semite, and Ford tried the same "reassessment" of US-Israel policy Obama is now trying.

How far back do we have to go, to find a US President who really helped Israel? Nixon? He bailed Israel out with weapons at the very last minute, after staying Golda Meir's hand until it was almost too late. Even then, his sidekick Kissinger would have let Israel suffer a complete defeat. You have to go back to Lyndon B. Johnson, to find a US President who really helped Israel; and he helped them by keeping his mitts off -- he was too tied up dealing with Vietnam casualties and Antiwar demonstrations.

That's the record of US policy toward Israel, which has gone steadliy downhill since June, 1967. That was the policy of the Kennedy-Johnson-Nixon-Ford-Carter-Reagan-Bush 41 generation, and of the Clinton-Bush 43-Obama generation. Add to this, the fact that Obama's allure has been to the succeeding generation (actual 30-year generation, not "X, Y, Z" 10-year marketing "generations"), and the situation looks anything but hopeful. Consider also that the Muslim population in the US has now surpassed the Jewish population -- and is actually growing, whereas the latter is dying off -- and you have a perfect storm for American abandonment of the Jewish state.

The problem with American-Israeli relations is obviously more than a personal problem revolving around a unique President; and don't forget that the US is Israel's only friend in the UN Security Council. World Jewry is in a worse dilemna today, than it was in 1939. In that year, the whole world forsook the Ashkenazi Jews who were desperately trying to flee Hitler; but they were kept from extermination because a third of the Jews had a safe haven in the US. That safe haven is about to disappear. Israel is the only safe haven now; and Israel is in grave danger.

This situation has not happened overnight. Europe's Jews have been partnering with the Western powers since around 1800, when they began to be "liberated" from shtetl life. The French let them down, then the Austrians and Brits, the Argies, you name it. Now their eggs are in the American basket, where those eggs the fox doesn't get are turning rotten. The Jews have been partnering with the Great Powers; and the goiim have been partnering with two lovers: "democracy" and "industrialization". Now the Jews no longer have to deal with monarchs and nobles, accepting second-class citizens. No, now they have to deal with the masses, and the false hope that technology will save humanity from its moral decay.

Technology is the "false prophet" of the Christian Bible, along with the atheism that has accompanied it; and the Great Powers are the "beast". The reach and power of the US and its minions has surpassed every other empire in the history of the world. We also have more technical and industrial capabilities than ever before. And the people of the world (except, perhaps, the Islamic Fundamentalists) TRUST IN this power and this technology.

Now that power and technology are jointly becoming a monster; and the climactic end of that monster will be its being smashed to pieces on the rock of Zion. That will be a disaster, such as the world has never seen; but only then, after humanity's idols have fallen, will the current trends be turned around.

Nuclear, anyone?

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".