Open Letter to Congressman Paul Tonko: You Responded but Did Not Answer

Dear Congressman Tonko,

Thank you for responding to my e-mail concerning your support of the Ellison/McDermott letter, which asks President Obama to ease the "unabated suffering" of Gazan civilians.

In your response, you state:

1. That "1.5 million Palestinians living in the Gaza Strip face living conditions worse than ever before", and "since the conflict in early 2009, the situation has worsened with Israel restricting the movement of goods and people due to security concerns in the wake of indiscriminate Hamas attacks."

2. That "a refusal to join the international community in providing aid would serve only to further strengthen Hamas to the detriment of peaceful Israeli and Palestinian civilians".

3. That "the Gaza Strip is still run by Hamas, which was democratically elected in early 2006", and "it must be a top priority of any aid effort that funding and supplies do not make their way into the hands of terrorists".

Yet none of the above provides an answer to my question why you signed the Ellison/McDermott letter to President Obama:

1. That makes no mention of the hundreds of Israeli civilians who lost their lives to Hamas suicide bombers, when the Gaza crossings were open, which is again requested in the said letter.

2. That makes no mention of Gilad Schalit, an Israeli soldier who was abducted by Hamas into Gaza in June 2006 and has never since seen the light of day or been visited by Red Cross officials.

3. That makes no mention that the firing of missiles out of Gaza continues, i.e. attempts to kill Israeli civilians persist.

You acknowledge that the civilian populace of Gaza democratically elected Hamas, whose charter calls for the murder of Jews and the destruction of Israel, yet ask that Israel make unilateral concessions such as "plentiful and varied food", "access to fuel and spare parts", "prompt passage for commercial goods", and "easy movement for people into and out of Gaza".

I ask you again, if Washington was under periodic rocket and mortar fire from Gaza and hundreds of Washingtonians had lost their lives to suicide bombers, would you still ask President Obama to provide Gazan civilians with all of the above?

Thank you for your prompt answer, which will be published in my blog.

Yours sincerely,

Jeffrey Grossman

Gail Collins on Terrorism: Clueless

New York Times op-ed writer, Gail Collins, displays her ignorance today in "Another Inconvenient Truth", in which she claims:

"The Bloomberg rebellion against holding a terror trial in Lower Manhattan fits right into the sour, us-first mood that’s settled over the country.

. . . .

Safety is always a concern, but Al Qaeda doesn’t operate like a season of '24.' Terrorists don’t generally strike when it’s most symbolic or best serves a story line."

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/30/opinion/30collins.html

Collins obviously has never taken the time to study terrorism. As observed by Albert Bandura in "Mechanisms of Moral Disengagement in Terrorism", which appears in Walter Reich's "Origins of Terrorism: Psychologies, Ideologies, Theologies, States of Mind":

"Terrorists try to exercise influence over targeted officials or nations through intimidation of the public and arousal of sympathy for the social and political causes they espouse. Without widespread publicity, terrorist acts can achieve neither of these effects."

As further noted by Brian M. Jenkins in "International Terrorism: A New Kind of Warfare":

"Terrorist attacks are often carefully choreographed to attract the attention of the electronic media and the international press. Holding hostages increases the drama. If certain demands are not satisfied, the hostages may be killed. The hostages themselves often mean nothing to terrorists. Terrorism is aimed at the people watching, not at the actual victims. Terrorism is theater."

What Collins terms the "Bloomberg Rebellion" has nothing whatsoever to do with a "sour, us-first" mood. It has everything to do with moving the trial away from an exposed population center, protecting New Yorkers and exercising common sense.

Bloomberg for president?

Hillary and Obama: Tragic Studies in Narcissism

Hillary is preparing her departure from the State Department: "I will be very happy to pass it on to someone else." Will she run against Obama in 2012? Actually, she has no choice, notwithstanding her "denial" in every sense of the word. Let me explain:

Hillary and Obama are both narcissistic personalities. What is the root of this personality disorder in both these instances? Hillary was abandoned by a philandering husband; however, she chose to remain with him inasmuch as voter approval became an addictive substitute for love, and the married image suited her pursuit of power.

Interestingly enough, Obama is also preparing himself to leave the White House: "I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president." In essence, he is already seeking to intellectualize his fall from public favor without compromising his protective self-esteem. The voters failed him; he did not fail the voters.

The source of Obama's narcissism? Obama was first abandoned by his father and later abandoned by his mother; his grandmother could not possibly compensate for this lack of parental nurturing.

Peculiar how fate has brought Hillary and Obama together. Or is it that politics attracts narcissists like moths to a candle?

Can Hillary and Obama undergo counseling and "change"? Unfortunately, narcissism is not subject to overnight treatment. Hillary and Obama, despite attempts to paint them in a different light, are tragic American figures motivated by emotional deprivation.

[For more information concerning narcissism, see Voicelessness: Narcissism]

What Hillary, Leaving the State Department, Doesn't Plan to Do

Hillary, who wanted to be vice president, but was auspicously denied the job, has been fortunate enough to maintain her approval rating as Secretary of State without achieving anything. Unlike Obama's White House Communications Director, Anita Dunn, who says that Mao is one of her "favorite political philosphers", Hillary relies upon the teachings of Dr. Seuss:

“Just tell yourself, Duckie, you're really quite lucky!”

But let's be fair: Obama and the boys from Chicago, who are well versed in Sun-Tzu, i.e. keep your friends close and your enemies closer, would not have allowed this would-be Number Two to outshine The One, who has achieved Zero.

Steely-eyed Hillary sees the ship is sinking, knows it's time to make a graceful exit, and is placing everyone on notice that after barely a year, she wants out:

"TAVIS SMILEY: Finally, there’s already speculation about whether or not Secretary Clinton is going to do this for the full first time, and whether or not she has any interest if asked to stay on to do it for eight years? You see how tough the job is, can you imagine yourself doing all four years and, if asked, doing it for another four years?

HILLARY CLINTON: No, I really can’t. I mean, it is just…

TAVIS SMILEY: No to what? All four or eight?

HILLARY CLINTON: The whole, the whole eight, I mean, that that would be very challenging. But I, you know, I don't wanna make any predictions sitting here, I’m honored to serve, I serve at the pleasure of the President, but it’s a, it’s a 24/7 job, and I think at some point, I will be very happy to LAUGHS pass it on to someone else."

http://www.politico.com/blogs/laurarozen/0110/Clinton_signals_not_a_twoterm_Secretary_of_State.html

A run for the presidency against Obama in 2012? She denies it, but this is a voracious political animal, and ultimately she will make her play for the ring. It is rumored among those in her inner circle that when she snoozes on intercontinental flights, you can hear otherworldly moaning:

"My precious . . ."

By the way, in the same interview with Tavis Smiley, note what Hillary did NOT say when asked her plans after leaving the State Department:

Grow gracefully old with Bill.

54 Members of Congress and J Street Seek to Mislead Obama

Last week, two members of Congress, Keith Ellison (who claims King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia is a visionary leader, notwithstanding the fact that his monarchy whips and imprisons women who are gang raped) and Jim McDermott, delivered a letter to President Obama, which asks for Israel to ease the "unabated suffering" of Gazan civilians. The letter was signed by a total of 54 members of Congress, including George Miller and Betty McCollum ("rockets are like a drug gang that uses drive by shootings as a tactic to terrify a neighborhood" and the solution is not "to lay waste to the neighborhood"), and was supported, inter alia, by J Street.

Although the letter seeks to strike a tone of balance by observing that Israeli civilians have also suffered from rocket attacks (Does this remind you of Goldstone?), the letter amounts to little more than a coarse attempt to pressure only Israel, and in order to achieve its goals, the Ellison/McDermott letter plays fast and loose with the facts.

Let's have a look at those facts:

The letter refers to a Hamas "coup" and tries to depict Gaza's civilians as the victims of the "coup".

Was there a "Hamas coup" in Gaza? No. If you ask Hamas, they will tell you that there was an attempted Fatah coup. Beyond question, there was a civil war, or Wakseh as it is known among Palestinians, beginning in late 2006 between Fatah and Hamas. Also beyond doubt, Hamas came to power in Gaza as a result of the January 2006 Palestinian elections, whereby Gaza's "civilians" supported an organization whose charter states:

"Israel will exist and will continue to exist until Islam will obliterate it, just as it obliterated others before it."

"The Islamic Resistance Movement believes that the land of Palestine is an Islamic Waqf consecrated for future Muslim generations until Judgement Day. It, or any part of it, should not be squandered: it, or any part of it, should not be given up."

"There is no solution for the Palestinian question except through Jihad. Initiatives, proposals and international conferences are all a waste of time and vain endeavors."

"After Palestine, the Zionists aspire to expand from the Nile to the Euphrates. When they will have digested the region they overtook, they will aspire to further expansion, and so on. Their plan is embodied in the 'Protocols of the Elders of Zion', and their present conduct is the best proof of what we are saying."

"The Day of Judgement will not come about until Muslims fight the Jews (killing the Jews), when the Jew will hide behind stones and trees. The stones and trees will say O Muslims, O Abdulla, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him."

Bottom line, Gaza's "civilians", who elected Hamas, cannot be held blameless for Hamas' terrorist actions, preordained by its charter, as the authors and signatories of this letter would have President Obama believe.

As noted earlier, the letter also states:

"We also sympathize deeply with the people of southern Israel who have suffered from abhorrent rocket and mortar attacks."

Excuse me, but aren't these congresswomen and congressmen, in their haste to appear unbiased, forgetting something?:

- No mention in this letter of the hundreds of Israeli civilians who lost their lives to Hamas suicide bombers, when the Gaza crossings were open, which is again being requested by Ellison & Co.

- No mention of Gilad Schalit, an Israeli soldier who was abducted by Hamas into Gaza in June 2006 and has never since seen the light of day or been visited by Red Cross officials.

- No mention that notwithstanding the fact that there have been fewer rocket and mortar attacks on southern Israel since Operation Cast Lead, the firing of missiles out of Gaza continues, i.e. attempts to kill Israeli civilians persist.

Ellison & Co. claim:

"lifting these [Israeli] restrictions will give civilians in Gaza a tangible sense that diplomacy can be an effective tool for bettering their conditions."

Oh, really. I always thought that diplomacy involves negotiations, which require both sides to make concessions. Here, the pressure is only being placed on Israel. Moreover, are Ellison & Co. really so naive as to believe that by providing, for example, free entry into and out of Gaza, Gaza's civilians will value the effectiveness of diplomacy, or, agree with Hamas that there was no need for concessions? Ellison & Co. obviously have no clue as to the workings of the Middle East mentality.

But before I take this to too great a length, let's suppose that Washington was under periodic rocket and mortar fire from Gaza and hundreds of Washingtonians had lost their lives to suicide bombers. Would these same members of Congress ask to provide Gaza Civilians with "plentiful and varied food", "access to fuel and spare parts", "prompt passage for commercial goods", and "easy movement for people into and out of Gaza"?

You know the answer. Ellison & Co. do, too.

Canada: A Beacon of Sanity

While Congressman George Miller sings praises to Richard Goldstone (see yesterday's blog entry featuring Miller's response to my e-mail), far north of California the Canadian government is not so myopic:

"Since last fall, the [Canadian] federal Conservative government has been withdrawing taxpayer funding from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) that use their grants to take sides against Israel in the Middle East conflict. Now comes word that last week, Ottawa told the United Nations it would no longer fund the world body's Palestinian refugee agency. From now on, Canadian aid to Palestinians will be directed to specific projects. We will no longer give lump-sum aid to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East (UNRWA), since most of that money simply goes straight into the Palestinian Authority's (PA) general treasury, where it might be used for humanitarian projects or might be used to arm and train terrorists.

This is a bold move for Ottawa, which is the first Western government to cut off funding for UNRWA.

Although UNRWA has long been a biased player in the Arab-Israeli conflict, it is seldom criticized for its incitement of anti-Israeli hatred and violence by Palestinians. It has funded textbooks that deny the right of Israel to exist and paid teachers who call on Palestinian children to push the Jewish state into the sea. It harbours radical Islamists and anti-Semites on its payroll and was even caught in 2004 using its own ambulances to ferry terrorists away from Israeli sites they had just attacked."

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/story.html?id=2480896

The chances that the Obama administration will abandon its impotent foreign policy of pandering to tyrants and follow the Canadians' lead? Zero.

Communist China: Cohen Momentarily Removes the Rose Colored Glasses

As happened to Roger Cohen in Iran, he is now coming face to face with some of the "ungainly" aspects of Communist China. In his New York Times op-ed today, Cohen recounts his encounter with a family which was brutalized by the regime, when the authorities decided to demolish their house (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/26/opinion/26iht-edcohen.html?pagewanted=1&hp). My online response to Cohen, should The Times choose to post it:

How does "A Woman Burns" jibe with your prior op-ed, "Single-Party Democracy", which begins with the saccharine commentary: "I’m bullish on China after a couple of weeks here and perhaps that sentiment begins with the little emperors and empresses."

What is more important for you, Roger, freedom of speech or bullet trains?

Are you still so "bullish" on Communist China, or has the charm of this tyranny worn thin, as also happened to you in Iran after being forced to face another travesty perpetrated against "A Woman Shot", i.e. Neda?