The Council Has Spoken!!

The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week, carved eternally in the records of cyberspace.

This week, Israel was very much in the news after President Obama’s speech demanding a settlement of the Israeli-Arab conflict based on the pre-’67 lines and Israeli PM Netanyahu’s worthy riposte. This week’s winner, Bookworm Room, took a look in her fine piece Contemporary coverage of the Six Day War — clear-sighted and moral at actual media coverage of the Six Day War to remind us of how far the media has fallen and how the ‘narrative’ has changed.Here’s a slice:

Given Obama’s obsession with the 1948 borders, this seemed like an appropriate day to resurrect some contemporary coverage of the Six Day War, culled from a commemorative issue that Life Magazine published back in 1967. (For those with long memories, I first published these excerpts back in 2006. It’s a shame Obama wasn’t reading my blog then.)

The commemorative issue opens by describing Nasser’s conduct, which presented such a threat that Israel had no option but to react. It makes for interesting reading, in part because it assumes a legitimacy to Israel’s 1967 preemptive strike. After describing how Pres. Abdel Gamel Nasser, speaking from Cairo, demanded Israel’s extermination, the Life editorial board goes on to say this:

The world had grown accustomed to such shows [of destructive hatred towards Israel] through a decade of Arab-Israeli face-offs that seasonally blew as hot as a desert sirocco. Since 1948, when Israel defeated the Arabs and won the right to exist as a nation, anti-Zionist diatribes had been the Arab world’s only official recognition of Israel. Indeed, in the 19 years since the state was founded, the surrounding Arab states have never wavered from their claim that they were in a state of war with Israel.

But now there was an alarming difference in Nasser’s buildup. He demanded that the U.N. withdraw the 3,400-man truce-keeping force that had camped in Egypt’s Sinai desert and in the Gaza Strip ever since Egypt’s defeat in the Suez campaign of 1956 as a buffer between Egyptians and Israelis. A worried United Nations Secretary-General U Thant agreed to the withdrawal, then winged to Cairo to caution Nasser.

He found him adamant. Plagued by economic difficulties at home and bogged down in the war in Yemen, Nasser had lately been criticized by Syrians for hiding behind the U.N. truce-keeping force. With brinksmanship as his weapon, Nasser had moved to bolster his shaky claim to leadership of the divided Arab world.

In contrast to the fevered, irrational hatred on the Arab side, the Life editors are impressed by the Israelis. Under the bold heading “Israel’s cool readiness,” and accompanied by photographs of smiling Israeli soldiers taking a cooling shower in the desert, listening to their commander, and attending to their tanks, Life has this to say:

With the elan and precision of a practiced drill team, Israel’s largely civilian army — 71,000 regulars and 205,000 reservists — began its swift mobilization to face, if necessary, 14 Arab nations and their 110 million people. As Premier Levi Eshkol was to put it, “The Jewish people has had to fight unceasingly to keep itself alive…. We acted from an instinct to save the soul of a people.

Our non-Council winner this week was Israel’s Pre-1967 War Borders: What They Mean – The Reality by Maggie’s Notebook, an insightful and informative examination of exactly that subject that was submitted by The Noisy Room.

Here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

This weekend is the commemoration of Memorial Day.Take some time to thank G-d you live in a free country, and remember that it’s only true because there were and are brave men and women willing to put their lives on the line to make it so and keep it that way.

See you next week!

Obama’s Muslim Outreach: Obama, Farrakhan and Wright

https://i0.wp.com/deathby1000papercuts.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/obama-farrakhan-wright.jpg?w=584

By The Political Commentator appearing in Death By A Thousand Paper Cuts:

Obama Muslim outreach speech at the State Department just the latest red flag from a President who is no friend of Israel or of the Jewish people

I live in an enclave of liberal and far-left people of the Jewish faith, and I am understanding enough to give them a pass on their vote for Obama the first time around. I didn’t get it but I give them a pass.

I would hope, however, particularly after his speech on the Middle East today, that they do not make that same mistake a second time.

At some point a liberal ideology needs to give way to common sense!

Obama State Department speech

Today President Obama, in an outreach to the Muslim people, told Israel that in the name of Middle East peace they need to pull-back to the pre-1967 war borders and give up its “permanent occupation” of the territory.

It is through this move by Israel said the President, that the peace process with Hamas, Fatah, the Palestinians and even the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt can begin to take place in earnest. After all, this giveback is a key demand of the Palestinians.

The concessions the Palestinians need to make was made much less clear by the President.

Never mind that a pullback to the pre-war 1967 borders would make Israel vulnerable (more vulnerable) to attack and risk its very existence. President Obama doesn’t really seem to care.

 

The Obama Israel hypothesis in the form of a mathematical equation known as the transitive property

It went like this in case you are drawing a blank.

Transitive property: If a=b and b=c, then a=c. These are the variables:

A= Reverend Jerimiah Wright presenting the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man who “truly epitomized greatness,” one Louis Farrakhan.

B= Louis Farrakhan who is the leader of the Nation of Islam and who has made many anti-Jewish and anti-Israel statements throughout the years including:

“These people have no legitimate connection to that land. They didn’t come into existence in the Holy Land.”

“Now that nation called Israel, never has had any peace in forty years and she will never have any peace because there can never be any peace structured on injustice, thievery, lying and deceit and using the name of God to shield your dirty religion under His holy and righteous name.”

“The Jews don’t like Farrakhan, so they call me Hitler. Well, that’s a good name. Hitler was a very great man.”
C= President Obama whose spiritual advisor and mentor for more than 20 years is the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Only when the heat finally got to hot during the presidential campaign did Obama cut and run (i.e. the mainstream media had no choice but to acknowledge there was a problem here).



The formula in action

President Obama’s (C) speech calling for the end of “permanent occupation” by the Israeli’s.

Louis Farrakhan (B) through his own statements is no friend of the Jews or of Israel.

Reverend Jeremiah Wright (A) believes in Louis Farrakhan, his thoughts, opinions and what it is he stands for.

Wright believes in Farrakhan
Obama believes in Wright
Therefore Obama believes in Farrakhan?
You make the call!

If A=B and B=C then A=C!

I believe this makes the Obama administration position a little easier to understand.

Watcher’s Council Nominations – Supporting Those Pre ’67 Lines Edition

Like Greg over at Rhymes From Right says – we’re all for those pre ’67 lines, as long as we start with the right ones!

Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday.

This week’s contest is dedicated to Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu.

Council News:

This week, Constitutionalists United For Liberty and Capitalist Preservation took advantage of my generous offer of link whorage and earned honorable mention status.

You can, too. Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

Simply e-mail me a link at rmill2k@msn.com with the subject heading ‘Honorable mention’ no later than Monday 6PM PST to be considered for our honorable mention category, and return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week.

It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members. while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So, let’s see what we have this week….

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions

Enjoy!

The Council Has Spoken!!


The Council has spoken, the votes have been cast, and the results are in for this week, carved eternally in the records of cyberspace of our inner sanctum.

This week’s winning article, Why we don’t revere our intellectuals by The Colossus of Rhody, took a far reaching look at exactly what intellectual has come to mean in our society and why many of us don’t revere them – and it has nothing to do with their intellectual capacity, but with something else entirely. Here’s a slice:

Insty had a brief blurb up linking to a Guardian (UK) article which asks “Why don’t we love our intellectuals?” In response, Insty also linked to articles by Christopher Hitchens and the inimitable James Taranto. The question is a good one; conventional wisdom, such that it is, posits that conservatives are the “anti-intellctual” crowd … you’ll see this conceit uttered frequently by folks like the usual suspects, and by those “big brains” in the mainstream media. As partial evidence, it’s conservatives who are frequently made fun of and derided. George W. Bush was a total buffoon — even though he had better college grades than Al Gore; Dan Quayle was a walking, talking gaffe machine — but our current veep actually makes Quayle look like a professional motivational speaker; Ronald Reagan was a “lovable dunce;” Sarah Palin is [insert demeaning comment],” etc. etc. etc.

Take Hitchens’ article next: He dissects the “intellectual” that is Noam Chomsky. Chomsky is sort of a radical leftist academic pop-culture icon (he got a nice gratuitous shout out in Matt Damon’s “Good Will Hunting,” for instance), who somehow has managed to evolve into this deeply heavy political and cultural thinker even though his area of expertise is … linguistics. He is greatly admired by a former big-time Delaware blogger many of you probably know, Dana Garrett. Let me state right up front that I love Dana to death — he’s an incredibly nice and personable fellow, who actually listens to conservative arguments and concedes good points when they’re made … a very rare trait for a progressive. (Notice that I did not put quotations around the word “progressive” this time like I normally do, for Dana is a true progressive.) Chomsky was one of the [many] items Dana and I argued about back in the day. It’s easy to understand why the noted linguist is endeared by progressives: the virtually constant tendency to side with the “underdog,” taking up the cause of the historically oppressed, fighting for minorities and the poor, etc. The problem is that Chomsky and his acolytes will overlook virtually every negative aspect about the causes they take up. Why? To be consistent? Because maintaining a contrarian view is of utmost importance? This leads to what historian Paul Johnson (noted in the Guardian article) stated about people like Chomsky — they are “moral cretins.”

Hitchens’ article dissects much of this aspect, and is pretty much in line with how I feel about him. In this case, ‘ol Noam chimed in on the death of Osama bin Laden where he questioned the al Qaeda leader’s actual responsibility for 9/11, said bin Laden was no worse than George W. Bush, and claimed that, by our commando raid on bin Laden’s compound, we thus “would justify a contingency whereby ‘Iraqi commandos landed at George W. Bush’s compound, assassinated him, and dumped his body in the Atlantic.'” Chomsky also complained that bin Laden’s killing was a “planned assassination,” and that he “should have been accorded all the rights of criminal suspects.”

It should come as little surprise, then, that bin Laden was apparently a fan of the MIT professor.

Our non-Council winner this week was Sultan Knish’s Allahu Akbar, an explanation of what that often heard term really means…and more importantly, how and when it’s used. An important read.

Here are this week’s full results:

Council Winners

Non-Council Winners

See you next week!

Watcher’s Council Nominations – Maxxed Out Edition


Welcome to the Watcher’s Council, a blogging group consisting of some of the most incisive blogs in the ‘sphere, and the longest running group of its kind in existence. Every week, the members nominate two posts each, one written by themselves and one written by someone from outside the group for consideration by the whole Council.Then we vote on the best two posts, with the results appearing on Friday.

Council News:

This week, Capitalist Preservation took advantage of my generous offer of link whorage and earned honorable mention status.

You can, too. Want to see your work appear on the Watcher’s Council homepage in our weekly contest listing? Didn’t get nominated by a Council member? No worries.

Simply e-mail me a link at rmill2k@msn.com with the subject heading ‘Honorable mention’ no later than Monday 6PM PST to be considered for our honorable mention category, and return the favor by creating a post on your site linking to the Watcher’s Council contest for the week.

It’s a great way of exposing your best work to Watcher’s Council readers and Council members. while grabbing the increased traffic and notoriety. And how good is that, eh?

So, let’s see what we have this week….

Council Submissions

Honorable Mentions

Non-Council Submissions

Enjoy!