Israel’s Loyalty Crisis
©2010 By David Talbot
On October 10, 2010, the Israeli Cabinet, under the direction of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, met to discuss a proposal to require non-Jewish Israeli immigrants to take a loyalty oath to the Jewish State, as part of the immigration process. The proposal passed 22-9 and now goes to the full Knesset (Israeli Parliament) for consideration.
As one might expect, liberal groups around the world broke out in righteous indignation at the thought of requiring a loyalty oath as part of becoming a new citizen of a country, any country.
But wait a minute, my wife became a citizen of the United States in 1965 after fleeing Cuba, along with her mom and sister. I was at the ceremony where she became an American. I distinctly recall her and 60 or 70 others being told to raise their right hand and swear to support and defend…..etc.
After administering the Oath, each and every person there was required, one at a time, to state: “I do swear.” Some of the individuals taking the oath were so emotional they stated those words through tears of joy. And all of us in attendance cheered each one.
When I enlisted in the Army, I swore allegiance to the United States of America. When I was promoted to Warrant Officer, and then Commissioned Officer, I swore allegiance again, and again.
Why would liberal groups be so upset with what should be a “no-brainer”?
Here’s the answer: It’s only non-Jewish immigrants who will be required to take the oath, if it becomes law. And, being the conservative Orthodox Jew that I am, I hate to say it, but I’m on the liberal’s side of this issue.
If there are terrorists in the immigrant group, trying to get into Israel, you think a simple oath will be any deterrent to their nefarious plans? I don’t either. So why go through this exercise? It’s pure politics! Netanyahu’s coalition needs to be assured that he will be tough with Arabs, the United States, and the UN.
There is an simple solution to this problem. The Israelis should amend the legislation and require every immigrant, regardless of former nationality, to take the Loyalty Oath. The Loyalty Oath legislation as it’s currently drafted, is not in the best interests of all Israelis.
Anyway, that’s my opinion. What’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
Contact David at: talbotnotes@gmail.com
Sunday, October 17, 2010
Tuesday, October 05, 2010
www.575magazine.com v.20.0
More on the “Peace Talks”
©2010 by David Talbot
This is my response to an article published in Ynet News on October 4, 2010. You can find a link to the English language version of the article on David Talbot’s Blog: http://talbotnotes.blogspot.com.
I don't know enough about the players, and the politics, in Israel. What Ido believe, however, is that a peace accord with Palestinians can never be achieved until some agency or government assumes, either by free elections or some other mechanism approved by all the parties, control of all Palestinians,and has the authority to impose civil order over the territory granted to this agency or government.
The degree to which Obama, and his agents,does not understand the Arabs is astounding. Peace is not the end game for them,it is simply a part of the process of total destruction of all Jews and the State of Israel.
Statements, many coming from individuals claiming leadership of the Palestinian people,are spoken with one meaning in English and a totally diametrically opposed meaning in Arabic,on the same day,and from the same people.
Obama seizes on the inane ramblings of terrorist governments when it seems they support his agenda, but he is totally unaware of the Arabic translation or, more accurately, the Arabic version, which is 180 degrees out of sync with the English version broadcast worldwide.
In some cases, these quasi leaders like Abbas flip opinions faster than a weather vane in a tornado, even to their own people. Leaving them totally baffled as to what their leaders think.
I believe the Foreign Minister is correct in his assumptions. So,no more freeze on settlements, no carving up Jerusalem, and if we have to go it alone, we will!
Anyway, that’s my opinion, what’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
Contact David Talbot at: talbotnotes@gmail.com.
©2010 by David Talbot
This is my response to an article published in Ynet News on October 4, 2010. You can find a link to the English language version of the article on David Talbot’s Blog: http://talbotnotes.blogspot.com.
I don't know enough about the players, and the politics, in Israel. What Ido believe, however, is that a peace accord with Palestinians can never be achieved until some agency or government assumes, either by free elections or some other mechanism approved by all the parties, control of all Palestinians,and has the authority to impose civil order over the territory granted to this agency or government.
The degree to which Obama, and his agents,does not understand the Arabs is astounding. Peace is not the end game for them,it is simply a part of the process of total destruction of all Jews and the State of Israel.
Statements, many coming from individuals claiming leadership of the Palestinian people,are spoken with one meaning in English and a totally diametrically opposed meaning in Arabic,on the same day,and from the same people.
Obama seizes on the inane ramblings of terrorist governments when it seems they support his agenda, but he is totally unaware of the Arabic translation or, more accurately, the Arabic version, which is 180 degrees out of sync with the English version broadcast worldwide.
In some cases, these quasi leaders like Abbas flip opinions faster than a weather vane in a tornado, even to their own people. Leaving them totally baffled as to what their leaders think.
I believe the Foreign Minister is correct in his assumptions. So,no more freeze on settlements, no carving up Jerusalem, and if we have to go it alone, we will!
Anyway, that’s my opinion, what’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
Contact David Talbot at: talbotnotes@gmail.com.
Sunday, September 12, 2010
www.575magazine.com v 19.0
Debate on the Mosque At Ground Zero
©2010 By David Talbot
(This opinion is a rebuttal to a recent article by Newt Gingrich, on his website, Newt.org, July 21, 2010)
I respectfully disagree with Newt Gingrich's thesis on the subject of the mosque at Ground Zero. I do agree the mosque should be built in another location. But that's on moral, not legal grounds. And I totally disagree with his demand that until churches and synagogues are allowed to be built in Saudi Arabia, or any other country before we allow a mosque, any mosque, to be built in this country. That kind of logic will get us in trouble here in America with unintended consequences.
It is not our business to demand how other countries conduct their internal affairs. In my opinion, it is totally inappropriate to tie a religious denomination of any kind that operates within the United States, to a specific action of a religious group within another sovereign nation, operating within the scope of that nations legal structure. It is precisely this kind of arrogance and ethnocentrism, that got us where we are today. It's reminiscent of the spoiled brat with a ball demanding the team play by his rules or he's taking his ball and going home. That doesn't work with kids and it won't work with sovereign nations around the globe.
Mr. Gingrich is attempting to inflame Americans to behave exactly like those he despises. His comments about the "double standard" that allows Muslims to demand our submission and weakness, is a vailed assault on two of our most precious freedoms: Freedoms of Speech and Freedom of association. Once we slide down that slope of identifying and then isolating a specific religious organization, who's next?
When you demand to know the funding of a specific project to determine the source of the funding, you imply the information will initiate some legal course of action. Who will decide the parameters of the action and the outcome of the legal proceedings? Who determines the standards of appropriate funding sources? When has any religious organization become the target of such draconian measures in the history of this country?
It is unconstitutional for congress to pass a law that targets a specific person or group of people. If this mosque is required to divulge it's source of funds, so the donors can be identified and investigated, isn't any donor to any religious project in America, or around the world, just one tiny little step away from being investigated as well?
This is all election year politics tapping into certain American’s fear and hatred to achieve a political agenda. The consequences of following ideologues, such as Newt appears to be, could result in the United States becoming the exact duplicate of those countries he's trying to repudiate.
Anyway, that’s my opinion. What’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
©2010 By David Talbot
(This opinion is a rebuttal to a recent article by Newt Gingrich, on his website, Newt.org, July 21, 2010)
I respectfully disagree with Newt Gingrich's thesis on the subject of the mosque at Ground Zero. I do agree the mosque should be built in another location. But that's on moral, not legal grounds. And I totally disagree with his demand that until churches and synagogues are allowed to be built in Saudi Arabia, or any other country before we allow a mosque, any mosque, to be built in this country. That kind of logic will get us in trouble here in America with unintended consequences.
It is not our business to demand how other countries conduct their internal affairs. In my opinion, it is totally inappropriate to tie a religious denomination of any kind that operates within the United States, to a specific action of a religious group within another sovereign nation, operating within the scope of that nations legal structure. It is precisely this kind of arrogance and ethnocentrism, that got us where we are today. It's reminiscent of the spoiled brat with a ball demanding the team play by his rules or he's taking his ball and going home. That doesn't work with kids and it won't work with sovereign nations around the globe.
Mr. Gingrich is attempting to inflame Americans to behave exactly like those he despises. His comments about the "double standard" that allows Muslims to demand our submission and weakness, is a vailed assault on two of our most precious freedoms: Freedoms of Speech and Freedom of association. Once we slide down that slope of identifying and then isolating a specific religious organization, who's next?
When you demand to know the funding of a specific project to determine the source of the funding, you imply the information will initiate some legal course of action. Who will decide the parameters of the action and the outcome of the legal proceedings? Who determines the standards of appropriate funding sources? When has any religious organization become the target of such draconian measures in the history of this country?
It is unconstitutional for congress to pass a law that targets a specific person or group of people. If this mosque is required to divulge it's source of funds, so the donors can be identified and investigated, isn't any donor to any religious project in America, or around the world, just one tiny little step away from being investigated as well?
This is all election year politics tapping into certain American’s fear and hatred to achieve a political agenda. The consequences of following ideologues, such as Newt appears to be, could result in the United States becoming the exact duplicate of those countries he's trying to repudiate.
Anyway, that’s my opinion. What’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
Thursday, September 02, 2010
Peace Talks
©2010 By David Talbot
September 2, 2010. Another day of Peace talks, another attack on Israeli civilians -- this time along route 60, a road that the Israeli Supreme Court and the IDF just re-opened saying they have full confidence they can control access. No one was killed today, just wounded--a miracle because the terrorists used a Kalashnikov rifle on full automatic hitting the drivers door with 9 bullets. The passenger in the car was not wounded by the gunfire but suffered minor injuries when the car rolled down an embankment.
Did you happen to notice the wild celebration in the West Bank last night? The peace loving Palestinians were celebrating the death of the 4 Jews (One of whom was pregnant), ambushed and killed in the first attack on Wednesday.
These so-called peace talks are a joke and will cause the fall of Benjamin Netanyahu and his Government. Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defense Minister, should resign now. U.S. President Obama promised no more unilateral deals, pledging an engagement with many nations in building a peace agreement between the PA and Israel. See any other European nations around the table? England? France? Germany? Italy? Anybody? And, Abbas is no longer the PA President ---not since he lost in January. So what credentials does he possess to legitimize his representation of the Palestinians?
Abbas reiterated today: no settlements, lift the Gaza blockade, all Jews out of East Jerusalem and the eventual Palestinian State.
No Settlements? Since when does the looser in a military contest get to dictate terms?
Lift the Gaza Blockade? Just what is being blocked? From the CIC Scene website: “Over one million tons of humanitarian supplies were delivered by Israel to the people of Gaza in the past 18 months – that’s equal to nearly one ton of aid for every man, woman and child in Gaza.” The most amount of aid, per capita, of any relief effort in the world. So, the only items being blocked by Israel are weapons. And, who rules Gaza? The PA? No, it’s Hamas, sworn to wipe Israel off the map.
Israel should give back Jerusalem to the PA as soon as Washington gives back New Mexico, Arizona, California & Texas to the Mexican Government; Puerto Rico to Spain; and, most of North America back to the Indians.
It makes me sick to see what Israel has become, so dependent on the American teat that they have become emasculated and, I fear, unable to fight themselves out of a wet paper bag.
Peace talks? I don't think so.
Anyway, that’s my opinion. What’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
David can be reached at: talbotnotes@gmail.com
Follow him on Facebook: www.facebook.com/talbotnotes
©2010 By David Talbot
September 2, 2010. Another day of Peace talks, another attack on Israeli civilians -- this time along route 60, a road that the Israeli Supreme Court and the IDF just re-opened saying they have full confidence they can control access. No one was killed today, just wounded--a miracle because the terrorists used a Kalashnikov rifle on full automatic hitting the drivers door with 9 bullets. The passenger in the car was not wounded by the gunfire but suffered minor injuries when the car rolled down an embankment.
Did you happen to notice the wild celebration in the West Bank last night? The peace loving Palestinians were celebrating the death of the 4 Jews (One of whom was pregnant), ambushed and killed in the first attack on Wednesday.
These so-called peace talks are a joke and will cause the fall of Benjamin Netanyahu and his Government. Ehud Barak, the Israeli Defense Minister, should resign now. U.S. President Obama promised no more unilateral deals, pledging an engagement with many nations in building a peace agreement between the PA and Israel. See any other European nations around the table? England? France? Germany? Italy? Anybody? And, Abbas is no longer the PA President ---not since he lost in January. So what credentials does he possess to legitimize his representation of the Palestinians?
Abbas reiterated today: no settlements, lift the Gaza blockade, all Jews out of East Jerusalem and the eventual Palestinian State.
No Settlements? Since when does the looser in a military contest get to dictate terms?
Lift the Gaza Blockade? Just what is being blocked? From the CIC Scene website: “Over one million tons of humanitarian supplies were delivered by Israel to the people of Gaza in the past 18 months – that’s equal to nearly one ton of aid for every man, woman and child in Gaza.” The most amount of aid, per capita, of any relief effort in the world. So, the only items being blocked by Israel are weapons. And, who rules Gaza? The PA? No, it’s Hamas, sworn to wipe Israel off the map.
Israel should give back Jerusalem to the PA as soon as Washington gives back New Mexico, Arizona, California & Texas to the Mexican Government; Puerto Rico to Spain; and, most of North America back to the Indians.
It makes me sick to see what Israel has become, so dependent on the American teat that they have become emasculated and, I fear, unable to fight themselves out of a wet paper bag.
Peace talks? I don't think so.
Anyway, that’s my opinion. What’s yours?
Shalom,
David Talbot
David can be reached at: talbotnotes@gmail.com
Follow him on Facebook: www.facebook.com/talbotnotes
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)