Full width home advertisement

Post Page Advertisement [Top]

The President is committed to working with the Congress to ensure that outdated authorizations for the use of military force are replaced with a narrow and specific framework appropriate to ensure that we can continue to protect Americans from terrorist threats. In working with the Congress on repealing and replacing other existing authorizations of military force, the Administration seeks to ensure that the Congress has a clear and thorough understanding of the effect of any such action and of the threats facing U.S. forces, personnel, and interests around the world. “The constitution requires that we cannot appropriate funds for armies for more than two years, and yet for almost two decades we have failed to revisit these AUMFs,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), as quoted by the Wall Street Journal. “To this day, our endless war continues, costing trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in a war that goes way beyond any scope that Congress conceived or intended.” “After nearly 20 years of fighting for this, we’re finally one step closer to ending forever wars,” she remarked on Twitter. Some lawmakers — such as Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) — were not so enthusiastic. “What message would this send to the terrorists, who are on the ropes, who haven’t attacked in the United States, not because they don’t want to but because we haven’t let them, because we have fought them on their territory before they have the ability to organize and attack us here?” he commented. The Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations will vote on the 2002 and 1991 AUMFs on June 22. Though Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) supports the legislation, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) believes that repealing the law is “more complicated, more dangerous, and less politically convenient than its supporters believe.”

The President is committed to working with the Congress to ensure that outdated authorizations for the use of military force are replaced with a narrow and specific framework appropriate to ensure that we can continue to protect Americans from terrorist threats. In working with the Congress on repealing and replacing other existing authorizations of military force, the Administration seeks to ensure that the Congress has a clear and thorough understanding of the effect of any such action and of the threats facing U.S. forces, personnel, and interests around the world.  “The constitution requires that we cannot appropriate funds for armies for more than two years, and yet for almost two decades we have failed to revisit these AUMFs,” said Rep. Barbara Lee (D-CA), as quoted by the Wall Street Journal. “To this day, our endless war continues, costing trillions of dollars and thousands of lives in a war that goes way beyond any scope that Congress conceived or intended.”  “After nearly 20 years of fighting for this, we’re finally one step closer to ending forever wars,” she remarked on Twitter.    Some lawmakers — such as Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-IL) — were not so enthusiastic.   “What message would this send to the terrorists, who are on the ropes, who haven’t attacked in the United States, not because they don’t want to but because we haven’t let them, because we have fought them on their territory before they have the ability to organize and attack us here?” he commented.  The Senate’s Committee on Foreign Relations will vote on the 2002 and 1991 AUMFs on June 22. Though Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) supports the legislation, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) believes that repealing the law is “more complicated, more dangerous, and less politically convenient than its supporters believe.”

 

The internationally famous refusenik and human rights activist Natan Sharansky, who spent nine years in Soviet Russian prisons, including a prison camp in the Siberian gulag, slammed leftist American Jews who have swallowed the anti-Israel rhetoric of Palestinian supporters that denies the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, calling them “Un-Jews” and saying bitingly, “Israel has become the ball and chain that endangers their standing as good progressives.”

In a powerful essay, Sharansky, joined by Gil Troy, a historian from McGill University, blistered the leftist Jews in Tablet Magazine. He started by noting that after Israel was attacked by Hamas missiles from Gaza in May, “the criticism from some voices within the American Jewish community seemed not only more intense but categorical, escalating very quickly from what Israel did to what Israel is.”Sharansky and Troy continued, “…at a time when 85% of American Jews also say that it’s ‘important’ or ‘very important’ for them to ‘stand up for the marginalized or oppressed,’ it is no wonder that for many American Jews, especially those in public spaces, Israel has become the ball and chain that endangers their standing as good progressives. It is also no surprise that this threat to their cherished identities as ‘progressives’ is met by a corresponding fury that leaves no room for reasoned argument about specific Israeli policies or actions.”

The authors then delineated how Israel-haters work:

The anti-Zionists know exactly what they are doing, and what they are undoing. They are trying to disentangle Judaism from Jewish nationalism, the sense of Jewish peoplehood, while undoing decades of identity-building. In repudiating Israel and Zionism, hundreds of Jewish Google employees rejected what they call “the conflation of Israel with the Jewish people.” The voices of inflamed Jewish opponents of Israel and Zionism are in turn amplified by a militant progressive superstructure that now has an ideological lock on the discourse in American academia, publishing, media, and the professions that formerly respected American Jewry’s Zionism-accented, peoplehood-centered constructions of Jewish identity.Then, the authors named the Jews who capitulate to the Israel-haters’ agenda:

We call these critics “un-Jews” because they believe the only way to fulfill the Jewish mission of saving the world with Jewish values is to undo the ways most actual Jews do Jewishness. They are not ex-Jews or non-Jews, because many of them are and remain deeply involved Jewishly, despite their harsh dissent. Many un-Jews are active in forms of Jewish leadership, running Jewish studies departments, speaking from rabbinic pulpits, hosting Shabbat dinners. For many of these un-Jews, the public and communal staging of their anti-Israeli and anti-Zionist beliefs appears to be the badge of a superior form of Judaism, stripped of its unsavory and unethical “ethnocentric” and “colonialist” baggage.

The authors then traced the history of Jews who have betrayed their people, all the way back to the time of the ancient Greek and Roman times, before asserting, “Today’s un-Jews remain as engaged with parts of their Jewish heritage, as appalled by other parts, and as anxious for acceptance, as their predecessors. … Today’s social justice warriors make war on Israel the same way that the Soviet communists made war on Jewish peoplehood and its institutions.

The authors concluded, “Ultimately, a broad, welcoming dialogue is important. But those who are set on denying the essence of Jewish peoplehood are rarely interested in the kind of respectful, mutual exchange that builds us all up. Rather, they are bent on destroying the most powerful force that has kept us together as a people through the ages—and without which they, too, will paradoxically wither away.”


No comments:

Post a Comment

Bottom Ad [Post Page]