Shiloh Israel Children’s Fund

Since his embarrassing dressing down in the Principal’s office in Washington last month, Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu seems to be holding firm in not giving in to President Obama’s unreasonable demands. The litmus test will be whether he agrees to extend the current building freeze in post 1967 Israel — Samaria and Judea.

In an earlier blog, I compared Netanyahu to the misguided Neville Chamberlain, for agreeing to the current building freeze. I hope that my perhaps harsh comparision was exaggerated and that Netanyahu will stand firm against all attempts to pressure Israel into submission. Pressure will only lead to more pressure, until he takes a page from Nancy Reagan’s unwritten book - “Just Say No!”

David Rubin

Shiloh, Israel

It is a rare politician that manages to transcend the maxim that “politics is the art of the possible” and advances from politician to visionary. Prime Minister Netanyahu may or may not have failed that test in his Bar Ilan University response speech to President Obama’s pro-Muslim speech at Cairo University.

Obama had implied in his infamous praise of Islam and criticism of Israel speech, that Israel was formed as a response to the Holocaust in Europe, thus supporting the Muslim canard that Israel was created at their expense to atone for European guilt. Netanyahu adequately responded to this, by giving a history lesson about our ties to the Land of Israel. He also spoke positively about the pioneers who are struggling against all odds to build up the Biblical heartland of Israel, although I wasn’t pleased that he spoke against the expansion of west bank settlements (communities in Samaria and Judea). Such a policy is inherently unfair, as it ignores the rampant illegal expansion of Arab towns. and should never be based on foreign pressure against Israel.

The main problem as I see it, is that no one will remember the proud history lesson nor the nice words about the “settlers”, but they will remember and repeatedly quote that Netanyahu finally agreed to the establishment of a Palestinian state alongside Israel. Sure, he placed several conditions on its creation, such as the recognition of Israel as a Jewish State and Jerusalem as Israel’s undivided capital city. These conditions might make the plan’s acceptance by the Arab world a non-starter. With G-d’s help, they will refuse this peace plan as they’ve refused all the others that fall short of guaranteeing Israel’s destruction.

Even so, calling for such a state is dangerous, not only because of the precedent that it sets, but because it is morally and historically wrong to say that such a state deserves to come into existence. Even if the Muslim Arabs of the Land of Israel are considered to be a people, they certainly have no historical roots as a nation in this Land that G-d gave to His chosen nation Israel. Furthermore, to promise them a state is to reward the fathers of terrorism, while not stopping the inevitable pressure on Israel from Obama and his cohorts to compromise on these statedly firm conditions.

To be a visionary is to not be afraid to be morally right even if it hurts your international popularity. Netanyahu may yet surprise us by standing firmly behind his conditions, and if he does, there will be no surrender of our Biblical heartland because the Arabs are extremely unlikely to accept his conditions. In that case, his speech will be praised as a brilliant move in the chessboard of international diplomacy. If not, he will go down in history as just another spineless Israeli politician who failed the true test of a visionary — which is not collapsing one’s principles due to pressure and at the same time seizing the opportunity to speak truth to power.

David Rubin

Shiloh, Israel

The pressure is on. But the essence of that pressure has changed. Rather than just calling for a two-state solution (translation: another Muslim terror state, this time in the historic heartland of Israel), We are now being told by Obama’s surrogates, Secretary of State Hilary Clinton and Vice President Joe Biden, that we need to stop all “natural growth”. As I asked on a recent CBN news report (see link below), what exactly is being implied here? Are they suggesting that we not provide our children with homes to live in? Are they demanding that we stop having children? While not (yet) explicitly stating that, the demand reminds me of Hitler’s infamous Nuremburg Laws, in which he regulated the sexual behavior of German citizens, both Jewish and Gentile. In this case, the American administration is only speaking about the Jewish residents of Samaria and Judea (the so-called West Bank), so I guess it can’t be racist, since it passes the Left’s litmus test of political “correctness”. According to the arrogance of politically correctness, a policy can’t be racist if it fits a particular extreme left-wing ideology, which in this case jibes with radical Islamic ideology.

Let it be said clearly for the political leaders of the world to hear: We will continue our natural growth in the Biblical Heartland of Israel. We will continue to have many children, we will continue to build homes and schools for them, and we will continue to build therapy programs for the terror victims who need our help because of the Muslim Arab terrorism. But if you side with those terrorists in attempting to stop our natural growth, you will be going against a historic, Divinely-ordained  process that is much greater than you.

“The smallest will increase a thousandfold, and the youngest into a mighty nation. I am G-d, in its time, I will hasten it.” (Isaiah 60:22)

David Rubin

Shiloh, Israel

http://www.cbn.com/cbnnews/insideisrael/2009/May/Obama-Calls-for-Halt-of-Jewish-Settlements/

Iran has threatened Israel and the Western democracies with its soon to be functional nuclear program. This is not an idle threat, somehow restricted to its Hitlerian leader, Achmadinejad, but extends to his more ”moderate” opponent in the upcoming Iranian elections. The difference is that Achmadinejad threatens both loudly and clearly. But the question I’d like to address here is this; How will we respond to that threat? There is a great deal of discussion these days in the American and Israeli corriders of power about the possibility of an Israeli attack on Iran’s nuclear facilities. Word has it that President Obama is demanding Israeli concessions in exchange for American cooperation/silence in the face of such an attack. This apparently refers to the ongoing Arab/ Muslim/American demand for Israeli agreement to the creation of a Muslim terrorist state within its tiny borders, a sure recipe for Israel’s destruction, or at least a sharp increase in terror attacks by our “partners for peace”. According to a news report in yesterday’s papers, Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Danny Ayalon, apparently caving in to the misguided American pressure, voiced support for the so-called “Two-State Solution”, in which a Palestinian terror state would be created in Israel’s biblical heartland of Samaria and Judea.

Such pandering to Obamian and Clintonian whims will solve no problems, but will certainly create new ones by projecting Israeli weakness at a time when we need to stand firm against the Iranian Muslim regime that would love to nuke Israel as a critical first step to renewed attacks on the remaining NY coastline and American interests around the world.

Is Obama simply naive about the stark realities in the Middle East, or was his infamous bow before the Saudi monarch several weeks ago just a symptom of a much more ominous Obamian admiration for the Muslim culture that he was raised in?

More importantly, will Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu stand up to Obama and Clinton and speak truth to power?

In about two weeks’ time, we will probably know the answer, as Netanyahu leaves for his trip to Washington.

David Rubin

Shiloh, Israel