The US presidential election is almost upon us. Please, read carefully to the end and share extensively – most importantly with voters still on the fence!!
That we are living in dire and deeply unsettling times is a given. But the essence of the crisis is frequently misunderstood.
~~~~~~~~~~
Douglas Murray, British journalist and commentator, did an interview with Ben Shapiro this summer. In the course of the discussion, Murray said that it is understood that Western civilization is founded on the legacy of Athens and of Jerusalem. Athens is under attack, but not existentially. But, he said, Jerusalem – one of the underpinnings of Western culture – is at risk existentially.
If all the Jews in the world were killed, he maintained, Western civilization would not survive. To eliminate Israel would be like cutting away the whole tree that we, i.e., Westerners, are on. The threat to the Jewish people is not just about the Jewish people.
~~~~~~~~~~
Now I do not believe for a moment that all of the Jewish people might be killed, or that Israel might disappear. We’ve seen time and again how the people of Israel, with protection from Above, has prevailed against what would seem to be insurmountable odds. And I believe we are seeing this again.
HOWEVER, Murray’s thesis merits serious consideration nonetheless, for Israel is fighting a fight that transcends national interests. Prime Minister Netanyahu has said this several times: We are fighting for all civilized people.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mTpwpjS4Lo (start at 10 seconds)
~~~~~~~~~~
What does it mean, that we are fighting for the whole civilized world? Most wars cannot be defined as important in these terms. Many countries are engaged in wars at present, but they involve border conflicts, claims over water rights, power struggles, etc. They do not affect the world at large.
The battle of the Western world against the Nazis was an instance of a war fought on behalf of Western civilization. Had Hitler, who was consummately evil and embraced evil ends, succeeded in taking over Europe, the blow to Western civilization would have been dire. The Western world, in good part, came to see this, and understood the need to defeat the Nazis.
Similarly, this is the case regarding Israel’s current war with Hamas and with Hezbollah, both Iranian proxies. In reality, what we are looking at is a war between Israel and Iran. This is a battle between good and evil; between democratic principles and authoritarianism; between those who value human life and those who do not; between those who honor rule of law and those who would subvert it.
Netanyahu has referred to the members of Hamas as barbarians; he means they are brutal, savage and uncivilized. There is that, certainly. But it is important to remember that they are jihadi extremists who embrace a radical Muslim ideology, as does Hezbollah, and most significantly, Iran. The goal of these jihadi extremists is hegemonic control of the world with imposition of radical Muslim theology:
“The military activity and terrorist activity of the Iranian militias against Israel and the American forces is the tip of the iceberg for the broadest strategic activity of taking over everything as such and changing the face of society and the culture of countries to make them like Iran.”
https://jiss.org.il/en/levi-irans-strategic-plan-for-an-economic-social-takeover/
It is this that makes Iran and its proxies so dangerous to Western civilization.
Some years ago, former supreme leader of Iran Khomeini said, “We shall export our revolution to the whole world, until the cry ‘There is no god but Allah resounds over the whole world.”
And he meant it. But the Western world does not acknowledge the extent of this threat, nor is it acting against it with focused determination.
~~~~~~~~~~
A consideration of the political dynamic of the US in recent years provides insight into the current situation:
Within months of entering the White House in January 2009, Barack Obama began to demonstrate his proclivity for supporting radical Muslims. His first speech delivered overseas was in Egypt, in June 2009; he invited some 10 members of the Muslim Brotherhood to hear him. President Hosi Mubarak was so incensed that he did not attend: The Brotherhood was outlawed in Egypt.
Obama said he was establishing a new policy of reaching out to Muslims, but the Brotherhood is not simply “Muslim,” it is radical jihadist Muslim. According to David Ignatius, subsequently writing in the Washington Post, Obama’s actions helped to legitimize the political aspirations of the Brotherhood.
~~~~~~~~~~
Over time, Obama took a number of other actions that reflected a tilt towards support for radical Muslims, but his most egregious action was the manner in which his administration participated in negotiations between the P5+1 (the US, the United Kingdom, Russia, France, and China—plus Germany) and Iran regarding the JCPOA, an agreement on Iran’s nuclear development.
The deal was a bad one in several respects, but most specifically regarding a sunset clause, which set a date beyond which Iran was free to pursue nuclear development. I tracked reports of the negotiations and what often seemed obvious was that the US team was too conciliatory, not tough enough in protecting Western interests. I found myself asking, which side is the US on?
When an agreement was finalized, sanctions on Iran were to be lifted, allowing Iran billions in additional income. An appeal was made to Obama requesting that a provision be included in the treaty preventing Iran from transferring some part of those funds to Hezbollah. Obama refused to consider this. Which side was he on?
This was the observation of Lee Smith, writing in Tablet:
“Barack Obama fundamentally reshaped the [Democratic] party when he struck the 2015 deal legalizing the nuclear weapons program of Hamas’ sponsor, Iran. By legitimizing the apocalyptic foreign policy aims of the world power that embodies Jew hatred, Obama sidelined the Jews and other centrists and made the progressive, anti-Israel faction the party’s new center of gravity.
“…by putting Iran’s bomb under a protective American umbrella, Obama was arming an American adversary to make it his own ally. The Iran deal was the first clear sign that Obama was not a normal U.S. commander in chief. “
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/barack-obama-ended-normalcy-american-politics
~~~~~~~~~~
You might assume that this is an interesting story, but no more than history at this point. But my contention is that Obama set in place policies and governmental perspectives that are critically relevant today – and that he has worked to sustain these policies going forward.
Obama remained in Washington after he left the White House, the first former president who chose not to move elsewhere and involve himself with matters other than those of state. He was, and is, very much a presence – influencing current governmental policy.
~~~~~~~~~~
There was a reversal of many Obama policies when Donald Trump became president. This drove Obama supporters to apoplexy because his agenda was at such great variance with Obama’s: Trump cancelled US participation in the Iran treaty and reinstated sanctions on Iran. He moved the US embassy to Jerusalem and cut off funds to the Palestinian Authority. He worked to establish the Abraham Accords, thus increasing Israel’s status among certain Arab/Muslim states.
~~~~~~~~~~
During his campaign for the presidency, Obama had established a vast grassroots network drawing on 22 million volunteers and 14 field organizers in key states. With the Trump victory, he moved to revitalize the political action of this group and train more volunteers.
Obama was working to defend and protect his policies. Ensuring that Trump, who so threatened those policies, would have only one term was part of his agenda. I am not aware of any precedent for this sort of action initiated by a former president. His role may have changed, but Obama had not retired.
~~~~~~~~~~
When Joe Biden – who had been Obama’s vice president – entered the White House, it was widely recognized that his administration would not only reflect Obama’s policies but would be directly influenced by Obama and his associates. His administration has incorporated a number of people who had been active in Obama’s administration, notably including Secretary of State Antony Blinken and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan. Biden’s weakening mental acuity made him more receptive to “guidance” from Obama and associates.
Biden lifted sanctions that had been leveled against Iran by Trump and softened his approach in an effort to get Iran on board for a new nuclear agreement.
While he professes affection for Israel, his policies with regard to the Jewish state are a mixed bag. He has provided munitions but has withheld the heavy munitions required for a solid win. What is more, he has slowed down other shipments. He has demanded that Israel sign on to an agreement with Hamas and stop the war before it has been decisively won. He has criticized Israel for inflicting too many Gazan casualties without pointing a finger at Hamas, which uses human shields.
Biden’s policy is to support Israel’s “right to self-defense,” but he does not support Israel’s right to fight a war offensively as part of that self-defense. In this sense, he is protecting Hamas, Iran’s proxy.
The Biden administration has also vigorously and outrageously promoted the “two-state-solution” and insists that the Palestinian Authority, which has effected cosmetic changes only, is “reformed” and equipped to take over the administration of Gaza post-war. The implications here are considerable, for the people of the Palestinian Authority have been educated utilizing the same UNRWA curriculum as the people of Hamas in Gaza and to a considerable degree support the Hamas massacre. amaHH That Biden seeks to promote the Palestinian Authority is a betrayal of Israel.
~~~~~~~~~~
And here we come to the heart of the matter: the candidacy of Kamala Harris, who is further to the left and more progressive than Biden.
She has made multiple statements embracing a pro-Hamas narrative. Most recently this happened when she was speaking at a campaign event at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. A heckler in the crowd called out that Israel was genocidal, and then that Israel has killed 19,000 children (an absolute fabrication). After the heckler was escorted from the room, Kamala said, “Listen, what he’s talking about, it’s real. That’s not the subject that I came to discuss today, but it’s real and I respect his voice.”
https://www.jpost.com/diaspora/article-825264
~~~~~~~~~~
She has appointed as her liaison to the Jewish community Ilan Goldenberg, someone who is hostile to Israel: He is “a fierce advocate of the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action Iran nuclear deal, a harsh critic of Israeli settlement activity and the US Jerusalem embassy move, and a defender of the Palestinian Authority against efforts to defund it over financial support for terrorism.”
https://www.jpost.com/american-politics/article-814964
~~~~~~~~~~
Perhaps strangest and most alarming is this: Very recently it was revealed that there had been a major leak regarding Israel’s plan for the attack on Iran. At first Ariane Tabatabai, who was chief of staff for the assistant secretary of defense for special operations and low-intensity conflict at the Pentagon, was fingered in the media as the leaker. She was suspect because a 2023 Semafor report had outed her as a member of an Iranian government propaganda group known as the Iran Experts Initiative. Because of her affiliation with that group, she communicated with senior Iranian officials.
https://www.semafor.com/article/09/25/2023/inside-irans-influence-operation
The Biden administration denied that Tabatabai was the leaker, and it turns out that she has been promoted. She is now a deputy assistant secretary of defense within Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin’s office, where she will lead its force education and training division. “She wants to increase diplomacy with Iran at the cost of the historically close U.S. alliance with Israel.” When one considers the influence that she can have as she does “education” it is deeply frightening. She is in a position to affect attitudes about Iran from inside the Pentagon.
Harris had to have been on board with this promotion for Tabatabai. And so, we must assume that she herself is in agreement with an approach that fosters increased diplomacy with Iran even if it is damaging to the US alliance with Israel.
Think very carefully about the implications here. Very carefully. They are terrifying.
~~~~~~~~~~
Kamala Harris as president would not only assume Biden’s positions vis-à-vis Israel and the jihadists, she would move beyond them.
She would cut munitions supplies to Israel and would demand a cease fire in Gaza even as it left Hamas standing. Actually, she demands this now. “This war must stop!” she cries.
She would undermine the legitimacy of Israel and seek to weaken the Jewish state, while she promoted a Palestinian State and a “two-state solution.” She would make demands that the PA take over administration of Gaza, and fight tooth-and-nail against an IDF presence there. She would seek to weaken Israel’s efforts to push back Hezbollah in Lebanon. Within the UN Security Council, her administration might very likely refuse to support Israel with appropriate vetoes.
As she undermined Israel, she would strengthen Islamic factions. There is absolutely no reason to believe that she would support Israeli actions against Iran. Better to be friends with Iran. This was Obama’s approach, was it not?
~~~~~~~~~~
And speaking about Obama, let us be honest here. I suggested above that as Biden’s mental acuity decreased, he became more receptive to Obama’s “guidance.” The story of Kamala is a bit different. She demonstrates exceedingly meagre mental acuity now, is given to circular thinking, repetitions of coined phrases and non sequiturs. She would be imminently susceptible to Obama’s “suggestions.” She goes blank when her teleprompter shuts down.
Obama has been hanging around for a reason.
~~~~~~~~~~
Ask yourself then, before you vote: Can you accept what Kamala Harris would attempt to do to Israel?
Beyond this, can you accept what would happen to the Western world if Israel were to be weakened and the jihadists strengthened as the result of a Harris administration?
There are many, many issues in this election: abortion, illegal immigrants, inflation, etc.
I would maintain, however, that nothing is more important than keeping the Western world strong in its ideals and values. And it is Israel alone that is fighting this fight for the Western world against the jihadi world.
Already the Western world is at risk. Would you cast a vote that greatly increases the risk?
~~~~~~~~~~
©Arlene Kushner. This material is produced by independent journalist Arlene Kushner. Permission is granted for it to be reproduced only with proper attribution.
