Still no call from the post-American presidency to the Palestinians to cut out the genocidal and absolutist jihad rhetoric. "Mideast: Clinton, Israel Must Make Difficult Choices For Peace," from ANSAmed, March 22 (thanks to Insubria):
(ANSAmed) - WASHINGTON, MARCH 22 - US State Secretary Hillary Clinton believes that Israel must make "difficult but necessary choices" in the peace process, because the status quo in relations with the Palestinians is not sustainable. She will say this in a speech to the pro-Israel lobby group AIPAC today. "There is another path. A path that leads toward security and prosperity for all the people of the region. It will require all parties -- including Israel -- to make difficult but necessary choices," the statement reads following are excerpts of it released by the State Department. In her speech, Clinton also stresses that Washington guarantees Israel's security, specifying that the United States must "tell the truth when it is needed".(ANSAmed).
I look forward to that. (So do I, Robert! So do I ... Hell will freeze over before it happens!--BeeSting)
23 Comments
I am usually a reflex optimist, even when my head tells me I might be wrong. In my life I have always felt that all of history shows that somehow, Humans always manage to do better than we were afraid we would do, while never doing nearly as well as we could have if we had our acts together.
But lately I am gettng a head AND gut feeling that we are about to enter VERY intersting times.
Cherish each day; permanent changes of profound consequences are in the offing.
Pray for Israel, and Pray for all who cherish the West.
I thought that IF Israel gave up GAZA they would get that "lasting peace" that Washington leaders promised???
Oh, I see now.
ISRAEL has to give in and give in to get "lasting peace", until there is NO MORE LAND TO GIVE....
Then Israel gets to be GONE, as in DEAD, RIP... etc
Why doesn't Hillary and company tell Fatah and Hamas and Hizbollah "they" have to make some difficult but necessary choices...
AIPAC is a disappointment to me. It's not to be compared to the anti-Israel (pro-Muslim Arab) J Street, nonetheless in many ways AIPAC does Israel a disservice. I read today, AIPAC delegates were not only cordial to Mrs. Clinton, at times they gave her standing ovations. Hilary Clinton has a record of making crude, anti-Semitic epithets and statements, especially to her husband.
Of course we all know her embrace of Suha Arafat after Arafat issued a blood-libel against Israel's Jews. Clinton has taken a fierce anti-Israel, pro-Islam stance since she left the US Senate to become Sec. of State. She might not be as hostile to Israel as Mr. Obama - whom I believe has a deep-seated hatred for Israel's Jews - but she is plenty hostile. I'm not sure if boos would have been in order but certainly not standing ovations. Maybe silence.
Secondly, AIPAC supports this charade of a "peace" process between Israel and her Muslim enemies. AIPAC supports establishing a "Palestinian" Muslim-terror state in Israel, in Biblical Judea and Samaria, Gaza, Jerusalem, etc. -- there is already a Palestinian state in Jordan which was part of the 1922 British League of Nation's Mandate for the Jewish national homeland. England illegally carved "trans-Jordan" out of the mandate giving it to a Hashemite king, Emir Abdullah. Jordan is 76% of the original Mandate. Now the Administration wants to further carve Israel up in order to appease America's enemies, establishing another jihad-killer state in the region, one dedicated to Israel's annihilation. AIPAC supports this insanity.
I'm not a big proponent of lobbying for US aid to Israel. I would like to see Israel wean herself from US aid and dependency. Whatever it takes. Israel should never have given up the Sinai and its oil fields. You do not reliquish land; especially land conquered in defensive wars.
AIPAC does Israel no favors keeping her dependent on US largess which is really a form of bribery to extract concessions of land from Israel. Back in the Spring of 2005, at an annual AIPAC meeting, any speaker who was against the Bush-Sharon "Disengagement;" the mass-expulsions of Jews from Gush Katif, Gaza and northern Samaria, was banned from addressing AIPAC delegates. Only pro-"disengagement" speakers were allowed to address the delegates. Only those who supported retreat spoke.
AIPAC is often at odds with Israel's long-term survival; sadly.
Obama and Clinton seem to be pushing themselves on Israel as well as Britain - They pressure Israel to give into Islamic extreamism which is rampant in Palistein and they ask us the British to give up our oversea territory, the Falklands.
Well done Osama, I ment Obama and your idiot friend, Hillary Clinton for pushing back two of your greatest allies and weakening the West
"Obama continues to strong-arm Israel: Clinton says Israel must make "difficult but necessary choices"
Making difficult and necessary choices is the last things Clinton and her boss should be advising others how to do.
How about banning Muslim immigration to out country?
The so-called "Peace Process" has only one purpose: to dismantle Israel and make it into another Arab-Moslem entity.
The idea of "land for peace" is insane, because Israel ended up with less land than the Arabs after partition, and the drive of the Arabs has been unchanged to make Israel into an Arab land. Those who do not see this must have blinders on.
When Ehud Barak offered almost all of Israel to Arafat--and there was a quasi-"Palstinian" state with an airport, a capital, etc.--Arafat refused it. Why? Because the goal of the "Peace Process"--and the Arabs ("Palestinian" and others) know it--is the destruction of Israel.
How many times must it be said and shown, in different words, that this is the way it is.
It is a stupid game, where two of the parties--Israel and the U.S. and its "quartet" and "road map"--pretend that there can be "two states living side by side" in peace.
That either Israel must be cut in two with an Arab corridor joining Hamas-Gaza to Fatah "West Bank" (Judea and Samaria) or the two Arab-occupied territories left as they are should be apparent to anyone with an IQ above 75.
And rest assured that it is.
The game, however, is to please the oil-Arab world and the "feeling-the-pain-of-the-Arabs" European multiculturalists. and so it is being played on and on ad nauseam, until either Israel is destroyed or the Arabs are evacuated from Judea, Samaria, and Gaza.
Otherwise the situation as it exists will go on and on with casualties on both sides.
The only other factor to change this would be the insertion of the U.S. military in the situation. With Obama--of uncertain and unknown loyalties and antecedents--this is not out of the realm of possibilities.
For all the American Jews out there who voted for Obama in 2008 and who also maintain Israel has a right to exist, do you understand now what a mistake you made? If not, you're a fool. And please, no arguments (really excuses) to the effect that Bush and McCain were no different. Bush and McCain gave lip service to obnoxious Muslim demands. One knows this or should know it. Obama (and the many rubes in his administration, e.g., his silly Secretary of State), by contrast, is naive or complicit enough to really mean the nonsense he spouts. Huge difference.
Moral equivalency thinking here is evidence of cerebral fallout. If one still supports Obama, whatever their ethnicity, one is anti-Israel. It's that simple. Jewish-Americans and all Americans who think Israel has a right to exist (and in peace) should look upon Obama as an enemy of Israel.
Here is something I can't understand. Given the behavior of the Arabs for the past 60 years, and what they openly say every day, how can anyone think that further Israeli concessions are in Israel's interest? That pressuring Israel to give up more land is the act of a friend? Yet this is what many in the west maintain, including many of those who describe themsleves as "pro-Israel" (whatever that means).
replied to comment from stasic | March 22, 2010 3:47 PM | Reply stasic, it's largely about OIL in so far as the lies US officials propagate. This has nothing to do with integrity or truth. It's pure self-interest. You can be certain no American would be willing to give up US territory in order to appease the jihadists.
So people like Obama, Bush, Hillary and before her Condoleezza Rice, Colin Powell, James Baker, etc., market it in terms of what "is in Israel's best interests." This is the paternalistic approach. "We only want what is best for you."
Like national (European style) healthcare is marketed as something that is "good" for the American people.
President Obama: "I only want to help you."
replied to comment from wildjew | March 22, 2010 4:08 PM | Reply Surely, wildjew, you can see that moral equivalency thinking, which would allow for no real difference between Obama and Bush, is an error. Yes, Bush was publicly naive about Islam (although I continue to wonder what he really thinks about this decrepit religion), but his pushing Israel for concessions was for form's sake 90% of the time (e.g., requiring that an independent Palestinian state existing side by side with Israel be free, democratic and non-belligerent, something that Bush knew was HIGHLY unlikely to happen).
Respecting Obama, this fool for a President really does mean to harm Israel and requires virtually nothing from the Arab Muslim world. Bush was wrong from time to time, but Obama is egregiously wrong. There is, after all, a heirarchy in everything, including error. Miss this and you miss a lot.
"Israel must make the difficult but necessary choices"
Necessary for whom, or for what? What garbage!
It seems that almost each disaster that befalls Israel is preceded by her making very difficult and absolutely unnecessary, even suicidal choices, demanded by American government who stupidly and wickedly expects to win arab hearts and minds with Israeli lives and limbs.
Israel must choose life. That's not a difficult choice.
But it must be followed by her choice to totally subdue her enemies. That's a necessary choice.
Israel must make "difficult but necessary choices"
What does Satan in a size 16 pantsuit know about difficult choices? She stayed with a pants dropping pervert philanderer to climb the political ladder.
I hear Bibi is going to tell AIPAC that Israel is "not a settlement."
replied to comment from Wellington | March 22, 2010 6:41 PM | Reply Wellington, I make no moral equivalency between Obama and Bush. I would agree, Obama is far (far) more dangerous than Bush. That having been said, had Bush properly educated the public about the enemy, we might not have an Obama in the White House. In fact I doubt we would have an Obama in the White House had Bush been an honorable and a decent man.
To say that Mr. Bush was publicly naive about Islam is bizarre. You are talking about the leader of the free world. Our Republican State Committeeman assured me, Bush had some of the best (the brightest) minds on the face of the earth advising him. You are saying he could not find an honest scholar on Islam anywhere in the nation to advise him? If he was not up to the job, why did he seek this high office only to lie to the public?
That you believe Bush was pushing Israel for concessions "for FORM'S sake 90% of the time" is obscene.
You wrote: ".....e.g., requiring that an independent Palestinian state existing side by side with Israel be free, democratic and non-belligerent, something that Bush knew was HIGHLY unlikely to happen)" is speculation on your part. Bush did enormous damage, not only to Israel, to Israel's security, to our relationship with Israel....not only did he bolster the jihad against Israel, but he also enormous damage to the American public's perception of the enemy by means of his repeated lies about Islam and the Middle East conflict in general, which he portrayed as the Jews illegally "occupying" historic Muslim lands and Jews humiliating and oppressing innocent Muslims. Why do you defend this?
That Obama is egregiously wrong, you've got no argument from me, but that Bush was only wrong from time to time exposes your partisanship. Because blind partisans stood by Bush even as he repeatedly lied about Islam and the Jews, is in large measure the reason this nation is in the mess she is in.
replied to comment from wildjew | March 22, 2010 7:55 PM | Reply Why is Bush being at least publicly naive about Islam bizarre? Scholars like Pipes and Lewis adhere to the notion that Islam is not nefarious, so why not a politician? In fact, how many Western politicians, especially viable ones, have condemned Islam publicly?
I also don't agree that Bush did enormous damage to Israel. He pressured Israel only to a minimal degree. Ironically, Israeli politicians like Barak, Olmert and even Sharon did more damage to Israel than Bush ever did. As for doing things for form's sake, Presidents must do that all the time. Nothing obscene about it for those who know a game is being played.
And I'm not being partisan, only trying to be objective. Bush did many things wrong, but compared to Obama he was OK and then some. Obama is a zealot and truly anti-Israel. Bush never entertained animus in his heart towards the Jewish state as I think Obama does.
The fact that the Clintons are forever helpful to Muslims has time and time again been proven. Have we not seen how the husband Clinton did Muslim Kosovo and Muslim Bosnia-Herzegovina a big favour by using the disproportionately more powerful NATO air-power to smash greater Serbia, the remnant of communist Yugoslavia. No doubt the fact that Yugoslavia was communist was an added incentive for a capitalist power to destroy it. And from this destruction of Yugoslavia or rather the remnant of it (Serbia) and to prevent it becoming greater Serbia, what is better than to create new Islamic nations? There is gossip going the rounds in South-east Asia that there may be attempts to carve-out Muslim sovereign states in South Thailand and South Philippines. Why is this so? You may ask. Reason is simple. For the Clintons it is simply a case of OIL-RICH Middle-easterners wanting to see RESULTS, yes that familiar word, RESULTS in solving the problems faced by Muslims world-wide. Particularly their blood-brothers in Palestine, which has now become top-priority issue. You have to understand that when people finance your political campaign, they want results in the form of you getting what they want. In other words, it's not for nothing that people contribute to your campaign-funds. Israel for sure is in no position to finance anyone's campaign. It doesn't produce a liter of crude-oil even. As for Obama, he's naturally a pro-Islamist. Proof? How he talked lovingly of Turkey in joining Europe. How he attempts to influence House Senate committee not to endorse killing of Armenians by Turkey as genocide. How he still tells Iran dialoque with Uncle Sam is still open although very soon Iranian medium range missiles (nuclear-tipped?) aimed at Israel are about to be installed. He even once said his closeness to Islam was based on the fact he has some close Muslim family relatives. Looking at Hillary's face these few days one can for sure see the pressure Obama is heaping on her to get results on the Palestine-Israel issue. For his pro-Islamist agenda (no more a secret now) definitely.
The parallels with the treatment accorded Czechoslovakia by Great Britain and France in 1938 become ever more startling. The same inability to take in what the enemy is all about, the same willingness to throw history and morality aside and to do so while constructing a plausible case as to why this is best for everyone; the same plodding and unimaginative nature of our leaders, who cannot deal with a threat that doesn't fit any they have seen before and which, therefore, they wish to deal with as, in the past, such threats have been dealt with, the inability to recognize that the very country you are sacrificing could have been a valuable military ally (in 1938, the Sudetenland bristled with Czech fortifications), in the mighty contest to come, the one that you can't quite grasp. The folly of the previous Administration, with its messianic sentimentalism – bringin “freedom” to “ordinary moms and dads” without asking itself how, exactly, that could come to be, and even more important,if that aim were somehow – it hasn’t been, and it won’t – to be achieved, how that would help in weakening the Camp of Islam more than dividing and demoralizing (that is doing nothing to discourage the pre-existing sectarian and ethnic fissures within that camp) that Camp. And if the Bush Administration allowed itself to be inveigled by Iraqi Shi’a in exile, the Obama Administration has allowed itself to be inveigled by the entirely meretricious “leaders” of the Arab countries who keep telling the American bigshots who visit, and who are so deeply impressed with what they hear, that “if only” we could all get rid of the pesky little problem of an Israel that refuses to do the right thing, insists on behaving as if it s a sovereign country allowed to decide for itself the minimum conditions of its own survival, then all manner of things between the world’s Islams, and the world’s Infidels, shall be well.
In surpassing folly, and in its failure to grasp the nature of Islam, and of Jihad, and to see what is happening all over the world, and especially in imperiled Western Europe, even the Bush Administration has been outdone by the Obama Administration, in which advisers and experts on the “Middle East,” incapable of grasping the larger threat of Islam because they do not see beyond the Middle East, or even beyond the “Arab –Israeli conflict” that is presented as a “problem” to be “solved” and not as a situation to be managed, and revealing a confused indifference toward Israel or, not infrequently, what is revealed as a deep and even pathological hostility toward Israel, and these people – the Obama Adminstration’s equivalent of the Iraqi Shi’a in exile who so inveigled the Bush Administratio – are now being listened to, and there has been no new thought on this, no new understanding of the role of Israel,symbolic and real, in the coming contest that is not limited to a tiny strip of western Asia, but will have theatres, of different kinds, all over the world. The Obama Administration is interested only in tomorrow, but has no concept of the day after tomorrow, when it comes to dealing with the Jihad – the Lesser Jihad against Israel, the Greater Jihad against the entire world of Infidels who stand in the way of the spread, and the dominance, of Islam.
So Hillary Clinton, who fancies herself a “policy wonk” but has never yet understood the legal claim or position of Israel, for she has never yet grasped the League of Nations’ Mandate for Palestine, nor the San Remo Treaty, nor what Resolution 242 actually said and was intended by Lord Garadon and Ambassador Goldberg to have meant, and the legal and moral and historic claims, as set out so lucidly in the books by the Australian jurist Julius Stone, or the more recent one by Howard Greif, are books that I am sure neither Hillary Clinton, that graduate of Yale Law School, has even looked at, much less read and thoroughly digested. They are making things up, as Chamerlain and Daladier made thngs up, because the latter did not know how else to deal with Mr. Hitler and Hillary Clinton, and those she works with and for, similiarly have no idea how to deal effectively with the forces of Jihad, and no idea how to weaken the Camp of Islam. And they wish to sacrifice, on the altar of their own ignorance, want of imagination, and lack of cleverness in exploiting the weaknesses that that Camp presents in so many and such various ways, Israel, or rather, the last remaining bits of territory that Israel took possession of in the Six-Day War, that Israel has a claim to outside of that of military occupier (though you would never know this from the Homeric epithets used by the BBC and latterly, by NPR, about “occupied land” or, still more tendentious and even, legally, more incorrect, “occupied Arab land”).
They talk "peace" but what they are really talking about is something quite different, and that will make open war more likely – peace treaties, and that will bind only the Israelis, and will be, without question, one more Treaty of Hudaibiyya, the model and basis for all treaty-making between Muslims and Infidels. But do they even know about the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya? Has anyone around Hillary Clinton read Majid Khadduri or Antoine Fattal or any of the other writers on Islam’s laws and rules about dealing with Infidels? No. They know nothing. They do not think they are required to know anything. They are in charge. They are in authority. They are taking “leadership roles.” And they don’t expect anyone to question them.
But they are wrong. And the triumphalism of the Arabs and of Muslims, if Israel is pushed back, and pushed back, so that it will no longer have the abilityto deter open aggression, and certainly will be so weakened as no longer to be a strong ally able to help the West (it will be too busy protecting only itself), puts one precisely in mind of Czechoslovakia, trying to explain that all of its fortifrications, and they were considerable, bristled along the border region that extended all along the northern part of Czechoslovakia, and that, though filled with ethinc Germans (carefully called by Hitler the “Sudeteners,” a “tiny people” who deserved their “self-determination”—just as, since the Six-Day War, the Arabs have so carefully renamed the local Arabs in Gaza and the parts of Judea and Samaria that were won by Israel as “the Palestinian people”), was not listened to, made its desperate and sad case in vain, and was thrown to the wolves by Chamberlain, and Daladier, at the very end of September, 1938. What a relif for all concerned. And there was even a song heard in Great Britain: “Thank you, Mr. Chamberlain” quite popular for a brief time.
And in Munich, in late Septmber, all the flags of four nations – Germany, and Italy, and France, and Great Britain, were flying, and there were deeply sincere looks of appreciation, and mutual understanding, and a great relief, on the part especially of Neville Chamberlain, and he returned to a hero’s welcomein Great Britain, and Hitler went back to Berlin, satisfied and fully aware that the fall was now so promising.
I was wrong: the song that was such a (short) popular success in Great Britain was not "Thank You, Mr. Chamberlain" but rather, "God Bless You, Mr. Chamberlain."
Here it is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HREwAVExBBw
Yes, sing along, and pass the song along to others. Perhaps some will bethink themselves.
Why the rush to statehood. As soon as they reach Peaceful Coexistence they'll commit an act of war.
The parallels with the treatment accorded Czechoslovakia by Great Britain and France in 1938 become ever more startling. The same inability to take in what the enemy is all about, the same willingness to throw history and morality aside and to do so while constructing a plausible case as to why this is best for everyone; the same plodding and unimaginative nature of our leaders, who cannot deal with a threat that doesn't fit any they have seen before and which, therefore, they wish to deal with as, in the past, such threats have been dealt with, the inability to recognize that the very country you are sacrificing could have been a valuable military ally (in 1938, the Sudetenland bristled with Czech fortifications), in the mighty contest to come, the one that you can't quite grasp. The folly of the previous Administration, with its messianic sentimentalism – bringing “freedom” to “ordinary moms and dads” without asking itself how, exactly, that could come to be, and even more important,if that aim were somehow – it hasn’t been, and it won’t – to be achieved, how that would help in weakening the Camp of Islam more than dividing and demoralizing (that is doing nothing to discourage the pre-existing sectarian and ethnic fissures within that camp) that Camp. And if the Bush Administration allowed itself to be inveigled by Iraqi Shi’a in exile, the Obama Administration has allowed itself to be inveigled by the entirely meretricious “leaders” of the Arab countries who keep telling the American bigshots who visit, and who are so deeply impressed with what they hear, that “if only” we could all get rid of the pesky little problem of an Israel that refuses to do the right thing, insists on behaving as if it s a sovereign country allowed to decide for itself the minimum conditions of its own survival, then all manner of things between the world’s Islams, and the world’s Infidels, shall be well.
In surpassing folly, and in its failure to grasp the nature of Islam, and of Jihad, and to see what is happening all over the world, and especially in imperiled Western Europe, even the Bush Administration has been outdone by the Obama Administration, in which advisers and experts on the “Middle East,” incapable of grasping the larger threat of Islam because they do not see beyond the Middle East, or even beyond the “Arab –Israeli conflict” that is presented as a “problem” to be “solved” and not as a situation to be managed, and revealing a confused indifference toward Israel or, not infrequently, what is revealed as a deep and even pathological hostility toward Israel, and these people – the Obama Adminstration’s equivalent of the Iraqi Shi’a in exile who so inveigled the Bush Administratio – are now being listened to, and there has been no new thought on this, no new understanding of the role of Israel,symbolic and real, in the coming contest that is not limited to a tiny strip of western Asia, but will have theatres, of different kinds, all over the world. The Obama Administration is interested only in tomorrow, but has no concept of the day after tomorrow, when it comes to dealing with the Jihad – the Lesser Jihad against Israel, the Greater Jihad against the entire world of Infidels who stand in the way of the spread, and the dominance, of Islam.
So Hillary Clinton, who fancies herself a “policy wonk” but has never yet understood the legal claim or position of Israel, for she has never yet grasped the League of Nations’ Mandate for Palestine, nor the San Remo Treaty, nor what Resolution 242 actually said and was intended by Lord Garadon and Ambassador Goldberg to have meant, and the legal and moral and historic claims, as set out so lucidly in the books by the Australian jurist Julius Stone, or the more recent one by Howard Greif, are books that I am sure neither Hillary Clinton, that graduate of Yale Law School, has even looked at, much less read and thoroughly digested. They are making things up, as Chamerlain and Daladier made thngs up, because the latter did not know how else to deal with Mr. Hitler and Hillary Clinton, and those she works with and for, similiarly have no idea how to deal effectively with the forces of Jihad, and no idea how to weaken the Camp of Islam. And they wish to sacrifice, on the altar of their own ignorance, want of imagination, and lack of cleverness in exploiting the weaknesses that that Camp presents in so many and such various ways, Israel, or rather, the last remaining bits of territory that Israel took possession of in the Six-Day War, that Israel has a claim to outside of that of military occupier (though you would never know this from the Homeric epithets used by the BBC and latterly, by NPR, about “occupied land” or, still more tendentious and even, legally, more incorrect, “occupied Arab land”).
They talk "peace" but what they are really talking about is something quite different, and that will make open war more likely – peace treaties, and that will bind only the Israelis, and will be, without question, one more Treaty of Hudaibiyya, the model and basis for all treaty-making between Muslims and Infidels. But do they even know about the Treaty of Al-Hudaibiyya? Has anyone around Hillary Clinton read Majid Khadduri or Antoine Fattal or any of the other writers on Islam’s laws and rules about dealing with Infidels? No. They know nothing. They do not think they are required to know anything. They are in charge. They are in authority. They are taking “leadership roles.” And they don’t expect anyone to question them.
But they are wrong. And the triumphalism of the Arabs and of Muslims, if Israel is pushed back, and pushed back, so that it will no longer have the abilityto deter open aggression, and certainly will be so weakened as no longer to be a strong ally able to help the West (it will be too busy protecting only itself), puts one precisely in mind of Czechoslovakia, trying to explain that all of its fortifications, and they were considerable, bristled along the border region that extended all along the northern part of Czechoslovakia, and that, though filled with ethnic Germans (carefully called by Hitler the “Sudeteners,” a “tiny people” who deserved their “self-determination”—just as, since the Six-Day War, the Arabs have so carefully renamed the local Arabs in Gaza and the parts of Judea and Samaria that were won by Israel as “the Palestinian people”), was not listened to, made its desperate and sad case in vain, and was thrown to the wolves by Chamberlain, and Daladier, at the very end of September, 1938. What a relief for all concerned. And there was even a song in Great Britain: “God Bless You, Mr. Chamberlain” that became suddenly quite popular but not, you understand, for long.
And in Munich, in late September, all the flags of four nations – Germany, and Italy, and France, and Great Britain, were flying, and there were deeply sincere looks of appreciation, and mutual understanding, and a great relief, on the part especially of Neville Chamberlain, and he returned to a hero’s welcome in Great Britain, and Hitler went back to Berlin, without apparently being miffed that no one hailed him for having helped to bring a permanent peace, but he was well-satisfied for other reasons, and there was a palpable sense, among Hitler's retinue and among the German population,, that things were looking distinctly up, and the fall promised great things, and there was work to be done.
I posted the above twice, inadvertently, with a slight change at the end and the name of the song now given correctly as God Bless You, Mr. Chamberlain."
I did not post again the link to the song, which is posted above, in a post dated (incorrectly) as 9:41.
Even if you don't care for the point my prose, the song should provide mordant evidence of mass folly, in retrospect scarcely to be believed, which is what our posterity will say of these last few decades, as Western Europe allowed millions of Muslims into its generous, naive, inattentive midst, and as the United States proved, in those who run its foreign and military policy, to be large, powerful, and not very intelligent, having turned into, in its follies in Iraq and Afghanistan, in Pakistan and Yemen, in Somalia and everywhere that the Green Flag of Islam flies or wants to fly, more or less a Baby Huey among the nations.
It needn't be that way. There are many many intelligent people who see things as they are. They just are not, apparently, in the right places at the right time. Perhaps things will change.
Ladies and Gentalmen, I still maintain that there is a deeper and much more spiritual element to what is happening to Israel.
Jews of all peoples have had a long (thousands of years) and varied history with the world. It would not surprise me that Islam invaded Europe in the dark ages just to seek out the Jews to kill them. Or if today Jews claim some other small piece of land and called it there home the Muslims would come after them. And remember Christians are a close second. No dought many of you have seen those video clips showing jihadist in training going into buildings and shoot pretend enemy. The enemy are cutout figures of men white washed with a start of David or a Cross painted on them.
No, I believe God is using the Jewish nation for his purposes in front of the whole world. As someone said above, "pray for Israel". And because of this our current administration is on the wrong side of this world wide struggle and God is not going to let the Jews down. I could be wrong but I think I am more right than wrong based upon the last 60 years of Israel existence.
2Sa 7:10 Moreover I will appoint a place for My people Israel, and will plant them, that they may dwell in a place of their own and move no more; nor shall the sons of wickedness oppress them anymore, as previously,
"Clinton believes that Israel must make "difficult but necessary choices" in the peace process, because the status quo in relations with the Palestinians is not sustainable...Clinton also stresses that Washington guarantees Israel's security, specifying that the United States must "tell the truth when it is needed"
I have one question for Mrs Clinton....'how do you spell bovine fertilizer?"