Brennan and Obama in Israel
Paul Eidelberg
It was reported by Women in Green that on June 23, at 5:30 a.m., "tens of police and Yassam forces arrived in 'Mitzpe Erez', in the Jewish community of Bat Ayin, not with paintball guns as in the terror flotilla, but rather with batons and machine guns, and destroyed two houses that were built in the Bat Ayin forest after and in reaction to the murder of Erez Levanon (may God avenge his blood)" by Arab terrorists.
The present writer asks, "Who gave the order to destroy these two houses?" The buck stops at the desk of Binyamin Netanyahu, who, genuflecting to Washington, called for a construction halt in Judea and Samaria for a 10-month period—allegedly to jumpstart peace talks with the Palestinian Authority, with which all talk of peace signifies self-delusion or prevarication. However, since this unwholesome state of mind has hitherto resulted in yielding Jewish land to the PA—a spearhead of Islam—something more serious is involved here, which prompts me to link Netanyahu to John Brennan.
In a speech at New York University, John Brennan, assistant to President Barack Obama on Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, outraged many people by saying "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance."
Some critics contend that Mr. Brennan is in denial or self-delusional. Others say he is merely a foil for Obama, who is said to be lacking in character—a smooth but shallow and mendacious personality.
Be this as it may, why are so many people outraged by Brenan's remark that "Islam is a religion of peace and tolerance"? Hasn't this been the implicit diplomatic message of one Israeli prime minister after another since Yitzhak Rabin signed the Oslo or Israel-PLO Agreement of September 13, 1993? Objectively speaking, weren't these prime ministers delusional like Brennan, or habitual liars like Obama?
After all, since 1993, more than 1,600 Jews have been murdered and many thousands more have been wounded by Arab terrorists. During this horrendous period, Israel has been led by six prime ministers—Yitzhak Rabin, Binyamin Netanyahu, Ehud Barak, Ariel Sharon, Ehud Olmert, and again Netanyahu, all of whom witnessed and were arguably culpable for this long-drawn-out reign of terror—which has no end in sight so long as Israeli prime ministers refrain from destroying Islam's terrorist network west of the Jordan River.
Returning to Brennan: if he is in denial or self-delusional, or if his boss lacks moral solidity or intellectual integrity, what other nouns or adjectives describe Israeli prime ministers whose minds are fixated on Oslo's demonstrably futile and fatal policy of "territory for peace"?
Back in June 2005, when Mr. Sharon was in power, the intrepid political analyst Caroline Glick of the Jerusalem Post wrote an article entitled "A coward for a prime minister." Would the term "coward" describe the previously mentioned prime ministers of Israel? Or is there a more significant term?
In 1996, eight eminent citizens of Israel initiated a petition to the High Court of Justice (HC 3414/96) challenging the legality of the Oslo Agreement. The petition maintained at great length that the Oslo Agreement violated Israel's penal code on treason, which means that those responsible for Oslo were arguably "traitors." Unsurprisingly, the Court avoided the merits of the issue and rejected the petition. Nevertheless, bearing in mind that Oslo involves the surrender of Jewish land to Israel's Arab-Islamic enemies, a prima facie reading of the four kinds of acts which the Penal Law defines as treason suggests a different ruling:
1. Acts which "impair the sovereignty" of the State of Israel—section 97(a);
2. Acts which "impair the integrity" of the State of Israel—section 97(b);
3. Acts under section 99 which give assistance to an "enemy" in war against Israel, which the Law specifically states includes a terrorist organization;
4. Acts in section 100 which evince an intention or resolve to commit one of the acts prohibited by sections 97 and 99.
Of course, all this now appears as academic fault-finding. No one is accusing Mr. Netanyahu of violating section 100 of the Penal Law by endorsing, as he did on June 14, 2009, the establishment of a Palestinian state. No one is petitioning the High Court claiming that an Arab-Islamic state in Judea and Samaria would "impair the sovereignty" or "integrity" of the State of Israel.
So I find it hard to understand why John Brennan's description of Islam as "a religion of peace and tolerance" should arouse outrage in America, when Netanyahu's endorsement of a Palestinian state aroused little more than a yawn in Israel.
Posts
