Posts
I just read an essay by Ari Bussel that I was pleasantly surprised to read. I really don’t know much about Mr. Bussel except from the occasional essays he sends to SlantRight.com for posting. I have to admit I don’t post all of Mr. Bussel’s sent essays.
I have kind of had the impression Ari Bussel is a Center Left kind of guy who is very pro-Israel. Once in awhile his hawkish nature shines through. That is not a complaint! The world needs more outspoken individuals willing to say the Arabs that call themselves Palestinians are full of bologna.
Most Leftists (AMAZINGLY among Israeli Leftists as well) are willing to fall into the delusion that a separate Muslim Arab State consisting of Jew-hating Arabs will bring peace to the Middle East. Hence there is a push in the West for a separate sovereign Palestine.
The so-called Palestinians sole goal in existence is to either deport Jews from their own homeland or to exterminate them in order to eliminate the existence of Israel.
My very un-Left-like and definitely politically incorrect stand is to deport the Arabs into the surrounding Arab nations that created the Arab refugees in the first place.
Ari Bussel does not sound off like that but he implies it by saying Israel needs to make some tough choices to survive. Bussel fails to provide choices and rather simply suggests Israel needs to make some rough decisions concerning the Arab minority within Israel.
You know what I think about those rough choices or decisions. I wonder what Bussel had in mind?
JRH 11/9/09
***********************
Tough Choices
By Ari Bussel
Sent: Sun 11/8/2009 3:46 PM
Many are worried that, if left on its own, the Jewish state will at one point have a non-Jewish majority. Thus, they claim, by democratic process alone, Israel will become a country of all its citizens, i.e. cease to be a Jewish state. Recognizing what they call “the inevitable,” some call for the creation of two separate states.
I call them those of little faith. They surrender in advance, yielding to an idea that will bring only one solution: The Destruction of the Israeli (Jewish) State. Regrettably, many “centrists” in Israel have accepted the supposition and persuaded themselves this is the right course of action. They, it seems, have lost faith in themselves and in their right to exist.
The majority of Muslims in the area have a very high birth rate. Coupled with a supply of fresh water, availability of proper sewage, state-of-the-art medical attention and other provisions by the Jewish State, including monetary support, and an increasing life span, the Muslim-Arab population in Israel seems to have the upper hand in the race to populate the country.
In contrast, most Israeli families are similar to those in the United States. The single exception is the religious Jews who resemble, in that respect, the birth rate of the Muslims. They, however, are just a minority (for instance, the 300,000 residents of Judea and Samaria) and constraints – such as lack of physical dwelling places that applies only to them and not to their Muslim Arab neighbors – have an effect as well.
One solution to the race to populate the country is to encourage Jewish Israelis to have more children. On a parallel plane, support by the Jewish State to Muslim Arabs (such as monthly child support and free healthcare) can be limited, making a family less comfortable than just having a new child every year. As long as someone else is paying, why not continue, worry-free?
I am also not worried about requiring every citizen an equal burden, equal responsibility under the law. Enforcing such expectation (for instance, dismantling illegal settlements, destroying structures built without permits, enforcing mandatory national service, etc.) should be applied equally, whatever the short-term price – including to Israeli Arabs.
Arabs may be up in arms, for they enjoy all the privileges of a citizen with few if any obligations. Israel is already a country of all its citizens, with members of the Muslim and other minorities becoming Supreme Court Justices, Members of the Knesset or Ministers in the Government. These minorities enjoy equal rights and opportunities, albeit not always equal obligations.
In this respect, the threat of an international outcry against Israel is less than significant; Israel is already accused of being an Apartheid State (e.g. President Carter, Judge Goldstone).
There are numerous court decisions requiring the demolition of balconies, additions to existing houses and other structures built without permit, all by Arabs. To put it bluntly, the authorities are afraid. None of the court decisions is therefore enforced for it is expected the IDF will be required to assist in order to do so. Thus, the IDF is used for other noble purposes.
Did I mention that Israel is first and before all a Jewish State?
It is time to make hard choices – a minority with national aspirations must have its wings cut, for it presents a clear and present danger to the entity-state. A minority recognizing it is part of an existing state, respecting its obligations as members of the state and enjoying the many benefits associated with such an “entitlement” or privilege, continues to be a viable and vibrant part of society.
Israel’s minority citizens would prefer always to be a minority in the Jewish State than part of a majority of an Arab State. They must decide and act accordingly.
It is thus up to Israel to make up its mind on the appropriate course of action. Lacking a clear course of progress by Israel, is there any wonder that others are dictating their Israel’s destiny? Without a pilot at the helm, how are we to arrive to our destination? How is the Jewish Homeland to survive?
_________________________
Say NO to Palestinian State
John R. Houk
© November 9, 2009
________________________
Tough Choices
In the series “Postcards from Israel,” Ari Bussel and Norma Zager invite readers throughout the world to join them as they present reports from Israel as seen by two sets of eyes: Bussel’s on the ground, Zager’s counter-point from home. Israel and the United States are inter-related - the two countries we hold dearest to our hearts - and so is this “point - counter-point” presentation that has, since 2008, become part of our lives.
© Postcards from Home, November, 2009
Contact: aribussel@gmail.com
Islam Inspired Nidal Hasan
Thursday Islam turned a man who says he is a Muslim first and an American second into a person who intended to be a homicidal-suicide killer. He did not succeed with suicide in the Islamic cowardly style however. After killing 13 Americans and sending over 20 to the hospital with bullets in their bodies a lady cop ended the Muslim’s reign of homicidal evil. Make no mistake about it; Major Nidal Malik Hasan very much intended to kill kafir American soldiers in the name of Mohammed’s Allah.
Believe it or not I don’t have a problem with the concept of Muslim first and American second. I feel the same way about Christianity.
As a Christian first I am told to honor the King (national authority) and all those in authority in order to live a peaceable life. Add to this the Christian concept of the Golden Rule: Do to others as you have them do to you. Or perhaps even love your neighbor. Or again do not render evil for evil. Do Christians now and in the past adhere to these demands of faith?
No, they do not or have not. Muslims, Jews, Secular Humanists and atheists are quick to point out the travesties of history perpetrated in the name of Christianity and/or Jesus Christ. Western Christians spent years of military movements toward the Holy Land after being fed up with Islamic brutal conquest, raids and humiliation of Christians in the grasp of Muslim control. Those military movements have become known in history as the Crusades. Crusaders unfortunately took a Just War cause and exacted violence and massacres of fellow Christians, Jews and Muslims along the way. This breaking of at least the “do not render evil for evil” Christian principle should not have exacted evil for Muslim hatred, slavery, sex-slavery, Christian humiliation of those choosing to live the life of paying the jizya tax for so-called Muslim protection to allow the practice the Christian faith.
There are a host of other atrocities executed in the name of Christianity. The next in the sphere of atrocity after the Crusades is the Inquisition in which Protestants, Jews, Muslims were tortured to death or convert to Christianity (Roman Catholic style). The Inquisition went after people suspected of practicing the dark arts such as witchcraft (which was more the case of hysteria of Roman Church greed). The Protestants are not off the hook either. Under the inspiration of otherwise great Christians (e.g. Martin Luther) Jews suffered horrendously. I am sure I have made my point even though there are more instances of acts of violence or massacre that can be dug up to accuse Christianity as being equally guilty of violence as Islam.
Yet is Islam or are Muslims a victim or possibly just simply having a comparable history similar to Christian abuses contrary to Scripture? As I said earlier acts of violence and atrocity exacted in the name of Christianity was absolutely contrary to the principles of Christianity.
Islam on the other hand exacted atrocities, violence, genocide and often the choice between converting to Islam, the humiliation of dhimmitude or death as traditional course of action as prescribed by Muslim founder Mohammed and the traditions of the Hadith and Sira (or is it Sunnah? I haven’t gotten two down yet.).
There is no Golden Rule in Islam especially toward a non-Muslim enemy or person (aka kafir).
Here are some Quranic Suras that demonstrate that Islam is NOT a religion of peace. The Suras are taken from an article written by Muslim Dr. Sami Alrabaa:
O you who believe! do not take the Jews and the Christians for friends; they are friends of each other; and whoever amongst you takes them for a friend, then surely he is one of them; surely Allah does not guide the unjust people. (Sura 5, verse 51)
And the Jews say: Uzair is the son of Allah; and the Christians say: The Messiah is the son of Allah; these are the words of their mouths; they imitate the saying of those who disbelieved before; may Allah DESTROY them; how they are turned away! (Sura 9, verse 30)
And the Jews will not be pleased with you, nor the Christians until you follow their religion. Say: Surely Allah's guidance, that is the (true) guidance. And if you follow their desires after the knowledge that has come to you, you shall have no guardian from Allah, nor any helper. (Sura 2, verse 120)
And KILL them (the unbelievers) wherever you find them, and drive them out from whence they drove you out, and persecution is severer than slaughter, and do not fight with them at the Sacred Mosque until they fight with you in it, but if they do fight you, then slay them; such is the recompense of the unbelievers. (Sura 2, verse 191)
They desire that you should disbelieve as they have disbelieved, so that you might be (all) alike; therefore take not from among them (the unbelievers) friends until they flee (their homes) in Allah's way; but if they turn back, then seize them and KILL them wherever you find them, and take not from among them a friend or a helper. (Sura 4, verse 89)
At this point a Muslim or Muslim Apologists think they have a great point to claim the Bible has the same enjoinders to kill non-Jews to make room for the Chosen People to receive the Land prepared by God. (Of course a Muslim would not say “Chosen People” or “God”). Let me point out that the order of God to kill everything in the Promised Land was based on the inhabitants being at the point of no-return in their moral arena. This people disowned the Creator in favor for false gods, committed sex sins (homosexuality and temple prostitution in their various polytheistic beliefs), infanticide of babies either unwanted or in human sacrifice and you get the idea.
Here is another point about the Old Testament Jews: the order to kill everything was not perpetual. Indeed it became obvious the Jews would not complete their God-ordained mission and time ran out on the task. It became the beginning of the constant error of forsaking God’s Law in favor of the same acts of the people they were to eliminate. Thus when the Jews of the Northern Kingdom of Israel followed by the Southern Kingdom of Judah were to the point of no-return, God removed them from the control of the Promised Land. Hence history has the Assyrian diaspora and the Babylonian diaspora (aka Babylonian Captivity). Upon a return to piety in foreign lands the Hand of God began repatriating Jews back to their Promised Land.
On the other hand Muslim holy writings have a perpetual command to kill the infidel (kafir) until they become Muslim. This command indeed stretches to the Quranic “People of the Book” (i.e. Jews and Christians). It is vague when the full throttle of the inclusion of convert or die for the “People of the Book” takes place; however it is a certainty that radical Islam acts as if this day is the age of extermination.
Another favorite rejoinder by Muslims and Muslim Apologists is this Quranic Sura:
“There is no compulsion in religion” (Quran Sura 2 verse 256).
In light of the Quranic verses above this is quite a deceptive ploy utilized by Muslim Apologists. The verse appears to promote the paradigm of tolerance but further reading of the Quran, Hadith or Sira would demonstrate there no compulsion in the sense of choice for the People of the Book. The non-Muslim is not viewed as being compelled when given the choice of convert, become a second class humiliated dhimmi or die. There is no compulsion when “choice” is involved is there?
There is also a difference between Christianity and Islam in points of view. Via Christianity the West has developed a unitary sense of logic. For example if something is valid then its opposite is invalid. If something is true then the opposite is false. If what goes up must come down then one does not jump off a tall building without some kind mechanical device that overrides the simple law of gravity.
Islamic logic is NOT the same. Islam is all about duality. This duality means two opposites can be the same under various man-molded ethics. This duality comes strait from the Quran.
For instance the “There is no compulsion in religion” Sura
is an attributed to Mohammed during his Mecca
and pre-flight to Medina
days. Mohammed attempted the Christian path of persuasion to gain converts
until he got the boot
from the Arab polytheists (a few Christians and Jews) from Mecca. Mo developed a more martial concept of
winning forcing converts in Medina
where the Jewish Arabs would not hear that Mohammed was one of the long line of
Prophets as well as being the last and final prophet which heard from God
Almighty. Yet the Jews and polytheists of Medina
did not desire early on to harm Mo as long as he stuck to his Mecca message.
Mo gained more adherents in Medina who he began to train militarily. As Mo became stronger the Jewish Arabs became a bit more resistant to the Muslim message. This all led to the slaughter of Medina Jews and the eventual conquest of Mecca. The die had been cast on how to spread Islam to the world. Hence Muslim violence and conquest is the continuation rather than the contrary of Muslim holy writings.
It is obvious that Christian atrocity is contrary to Christian principles and Muslim atrocities are ordained by Muslim principles. Thus we have one Nidal Malik Hasan going on an Islamic inspired killing spree.
JRH 11/9/09 (Originally written 11/7/09)
It is good to read that someone outside the slanted Right has the gumption to imply the Ft Hood massacre was an act of terrorism on the scale of 9/11 as a disaster. I am with Senator Lieberman, a full blown Congressional investigation needs to take place to understand how a Muslim with radical views was allowed to be a U.S. Major or at the least why the Muslim assassin was allowed to even be in the Army.
JRH 11/8/09
Ben of Ben’s Blog operates several blogs as many of us bloggers do including me. Many such blogs operate under a pseudonym to avoid be a target in their personal life. I suspect Ben may be a pseudonym. I mention this out of clarification rather than as an exposé.
Ben has written a post which demonstrates that organized Islamic terrorism is still trying to make hits on American soil. Home grown Islamic terrorism comparable to Major Nidal Hasan’s killing spree on American soil might be the result of an individual snapping at the perceived insult to Islam; however organized efforts representing foreign radical Muslims continues as well.
Ben’s Blog writes about such an occasion.
JRH 11/8/09
Have you heard or read from a Muslim, a Muslim apologist or a kafir who has befriended a Muslim a statement similar to this:
“Islam is no different than Christianity or Judaism. They both have bloodshed – one in the Quran and the other in the Bible. Muslims worship the same god as Christians and Jews.”
I have heard this often from friends and family who question my criticism of Islam (Mohammedanism is a better word) as being hate-speech or racism.
Bill Warner of Political Islam has posted the best rebuttal to the accusation my blog(s) are full of hatred toward Islam and Muslims.
JRH 11/7/09
What happened at Fort Hood yesterday is a demonstration of the influence of Mohammed’s Islam on an individual. Regardless of what the Politically Correct Mainstream Media (MSM), the typical Leftist or the majority of so-called non-violent Muslims will you; Mohammed’s religion was created on the back of theo-political conquest as well as harshly securing the conquest by humiliating or killing the conquered.
The peace found in Islam is by those who submit to the theo-political dogma of Islam as inspired by Mohammed (its author), the Quran (the so-called words of Allah as delivered by Mo), the Hadith, Sunnah and various other Islamic commentary writings.
The so-called peace is submerged by the violence called for when Islam is offended either from within (Muslims) or outside (kafir).
As more and more info becomes available about Muslim U.S. Army psychiatrist Major Nidal Hasan, we will become aware that Islam played a huge part in his decision to go on a bloodthirsty psycho-spree.
A blog on the New York Times has been keeping track with updates at Fort Hood and Nidal Hasan. I am going repost the updates in reverse order up to the time of this writing. I have know idea when the updates will discontinue however I am certain a few more will arrive at the blog so go there to get caught up or possibly a location not quite as politically correct as the New York Times.
JRH 11/6/09
A lot of Conservative Political Action Committees (PAC) not affiliated with a political candidate love to take credit for their part in a candidate’s victory. When a candidate loses either try to spin their part as a success or are silent.
I start out this way because a Conservative candidate that was attempting to buck the Two-Party System in America gave a good shot but lost in New York district 23. That candidate was Conservative Party nominee for the House of Representatives Doug Hoffman.
I learned the reason for Hoffman’s loss. It was not because Hoffman polled third behind Democrats and Republicans. He actually polled second at 45% to %49%. Leftist Democrat Bill Owens won by a mere 4%. The travesty for Hoffman’s loss is the Republican candidate battling Hoffman and Owens realizing she was not going to win dropped out of the race and endorsed the Leftist Democrat Owens. That RINO Republican was Dede Scozzafava.
One may ask, “Why is a Republican supporting a Democrat for Office in this time of growing voter mistrust of Democrats and Leftists?”
Scozzafava was truly a Republican in Name Only. She supported the Democratic Party Leftist platform which included Pelosi favoritism for abortion and social transformation rendering the U.S. Constitution irrelevant. This is the very same thing President Barack Hussein Obama represents as well.
Hoffman has a remarkable amount of reputable Republicans endorse him over the Leftist Scozzafava. This I found a blessing for the Conservative base that is reemerging as the voice of Americans. I was a bit disheartened to hear that Republicans such as Newt Gingrich supported Scozzafava for no other reason than Republican Party loyalty. Newt should have realized that blind Party loyalty will not make significant wins as former Presidential candidate Senator John McCain proved. Senator McCain was a RINO that really had only a couple of attractions for a Conservative Republican; viz. his rough reputation as a maverick and his Vice Presidential nominee Sarah Palin. McCain banked on his maverick image of making his own decisions regardless of Conservatism or Leftism. McCain should have been wise enough to utilize Palin better bark at Obama’s Leftist credentials and past associations. This is especially so since the Obama campaign utilized the MSM to castigate Palin’s image with down right made up Leftist lies.
Thus goes Party loyalty! Down the proverbial drain!
If the Republican Party used the opportunity to get a Hoffman win with GOP financial resources, Hoffman would have definitely won that race. Sure Hoffman is NOT a Republican but does anyone believe he would caucus with Leftist Democrats? This was a non-Republican Conservative who would not support the Pelosi way as Scozzafava would have. You have to know that Owens is merely a rubber stamp for the Obama/Pelosi Leftist agenda for America.
I am on the Club for Growth mailing list. Club for Growth as any good PAC group would have gave a spin self-gratifying personal spin on Hoffman’s loss. Regardless of Chris Chocola of Club for Growth’s personal spin, the point made of why Doug Hoffman should have won is very relevant for future Conservative and Republican politics of the near future.
Here is the email Chocola sent to me:
JRH 11/6/09
************************
Hoffman Comes Up Short in NY-23
Chris Chocola
Sent: November 4, 2009 12:03:50 PM
Club For Growth
As you have probably heard by now, Club for Growth PAC-endorsed candidate Doug Hoffman lost his underdog bid in yesterday's special election in New York's 23rd congressional district. Nominee of the Conservative Party of New York, and the first third-party candidate the Club PAC has ever supported, Doug finished with 45 percent of the vote, but fell short to Democrat Bill Owens' 49 percent. The official Republican nominee, Dede Scozzafava, took 5.5 percent of the vote and played the spoiler after dropping out of the race and endorsing the liberal Democrat in the final days of the campaign.
Doug's loss is a disappointment, but our efforts shined a national spotlight on the campaign and sent an important message to Washington insiders. The day the Club for Growth PAC entered the race, Doug was polling at 17 percent - with our help, he gained 28 points in just 36 days, and came very close to pulling off an historic upset against both major parties. It's now clear that had the Republican Party supported Doug or any serious conservative from the beginning, he would have won going away.
Party labels aside, conservatives lost nothing last night, as Scozzafava and Owens are both avowed liberals in support of Nancy Pelosi's agenda in the House of Representatives. Doug Hoffman was our only chance to bring real change to Washington, and in little more than a month, we almost helped him pull it off.
As attention turns now to the 2010 election cycle, there are a few lessons to be learned from last night's results. First, the Club's PAC reaffirmed its unique ability to identify and promote economic-freedom candidates early on and to draw conservatives around the country to their cause. Second, the Republican establishment learned that in these difficult times, voters - especially center-right voters - are drawn to principles, not parties. And most importantly, conservatives learned that the principles of limited government and economic freedom are ascendant heading into next year's elections, and that the Club for Growth PAC stands ready to fight effectively for those principles wherever we can do the most good.
Thank you for all you did in the historic NY-23 race. I say "historic" not because we won this battle - we didn't - but because I have a good feeling that this battle will set a tone for and pay dividends in the coming battles against national health care, for limited government, and to mobilize grassroots free-market citizens to rise up in other election contests in 2010.
Best Regards,
Chris
_____________________
Hoffman Lost BUT Should Have Won
John R. Houk
© November 6, 2009
_____________________
Hoffman Comes Up Short in NY-23
Chris Chocola
President, Club for Growth
2001 L Street, NW, Ste 600
Washington, DC 20036
PH: 202-955-5500
Government mandated disclaimers --
Donations to the Club for Growth are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes. We do not accept donations from corporations, labor unions, foreign nationals, or federal contractors. Donations may be used for political purposes such as supporting or opposing candidates. No funds will be earmarked or reserved for any political purpose.
Yesterday I read a Liberty Council authored Christian Newswire article that validated Conservatism, Christian Family Values as well as Biblical moral values. The article basically was a ‘smack the red headed step-children’ of Leftism and the homosexual agenda in its hubris over President Barack Hussein Obama and the Leftist Dems “Change” mantra of the 2008 election.
In summary here is the summary of the Conservative/Family Value victory:
n Virginia voted in a Conservative Republican Governor, Lt. Governor and Attorney General while contrastingly showing the Virginia Dems the door.
n Incumbent Leftist Dem Governor John Corzine was defeated by Republican Chris Christie even though the Leftist darling President BHO campaigned for him and the MSM polls showed Corzine leading in the polls.
n In May 2009 the lawmakers of Maine produced a bill signed by the Governor legalizing same-sex marriage. On November 4, 2009 Maine voters chose Biblical Morality over lawmaker Secular Humanism by repealing the legislation. Leftists and homosexual ideologues made sure via the comment route to inform a State legalized same-sex marriage by law rather than judicial fiat.
To my joy I discovered slanted right political wit Ann Coulter wrote an article demonstrating the Conservative cause is alive and well. My fellow Conservatives read it for some mirth. Counter-culture Leftists and homosexuals read it and weep.
JRH 11/5/09
The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is a litigious deceptive Islamic-American organization with ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and terrorists such as Hamas.
The one thing CAIR hates is when non-Muslims expose this reality concerning CAIR. This is where the word “litigious” enters the picture. CAIR has taken a page from the Leftist ACLU to use large economic resources to intimidate people who criticize their organization. This concept is known as lawfare, legal jihad or libel terrorism. The intimidation’s goal is to force a retraction or economically ruin the defendant.
In the case of CAIR two people come to my mind. They are Andrew Whitehead and Joe Kaufman* (*although Kaufman was sued by CAIR likeminded Muslim-American organizations.) of Anti-CAIR and CAIR Watch (Americans Against Hate) respectively. Whitehead and Kaufman successfully beat down lawfare intimidation.
Now it appears to be the turn of Dave Gaubatz and son Chris Gaubatz who were instrumental in the research documentation of the new book Muslim Mafia. CAIR is going after the Gaubatzes with some legal jihad claiming the two are in breach of contract, theft of documentation and trespassing.
World Net Daily (WND) is promoting the Muslim Mafia has sent an update concerning this legal intimidation tactic: READ AT THE END OF THIS INTRODUCTION.
JRH 11/4/09
Iran was supposed to have given a final decision to a document it approved in principle stipulating Iran would ship most of its nuclear fuel to Russia for enrichment rather than do the process in Iran. Iran made the deal October 21, 2009 with the deadline being October 22. Theoretically this was to alleviate Western fears of developing nuclear warheads for Iran’s already tested ICBM’s. I expressed the thoughts that neither Iran nor Russia could be trusted in such a deal.
October 22 has come and gone with Iran claiming IAEA ElBaradei made no such deadline. Rather ElBaradei merely suggested a response time.
Of course this a typical stall tactic employed quite successfully by Iran whenever the psycho-ruling Shi’ite Clerics felt international pressure needed a bit of smoke and mirrors.
As of November 2 it is obvious Iran is backing away from the plan agreed on in principle on October 21. Officially Iran has is still claiming adherence to the plan with only a few minor details being changed. The reality is the minor details is a full about face counter-proposal. This indicates that Iran still has every intention of constructing nuclear weapons. If this is the case as I believe then John Bolton’s advice for a pre-emptive strike by Israel is well founded.
Probably for political purposes the Obama Administration via Secretary State Clinton has publicly taken the stand there will be no other deal for Iran. There indications that the Obama Administration are drawing up plans for stiff sanctions to be imposed on Iran. This leaves one to wonder: What are the stiffer sanctions Obama intends to use? If they are as toothless as in the past then why even bother to have sanctions. Simply do what Obama’s Administration has been hoping anyway; i.e. give Iran a rubber stamp of inevitability as a regional nuke power and mold foreign policy accordingly.
Will Israel become a Lone Ranger and strike Iran when it understands completely where Obama foreign policy is leading concerning Iranian nuclear weapons?
There is an Iran nuclear analysis provided by AP writer Brian Murphy concerning Iranian President Ahmadinejad toward the West, America and Israel. The part of the analysis that struck me is that Ahmadinejad is willing to go the extra distance in his arrogant disdain of American power as a deterrent. So I ask again, “What will Israel do?”
JRH 11/3/09 (Hat Tip: United Against Nuclear Iran)
