creators.com opinion web
Liberal Opinion General Opinion
Suzanne Fields
Suzanne Fields
19 Sep 2014
The Israelization of Anti-Semitism

Angela Merkel is the stand-up lady of Europe. The German chancellor is forthright in calling anti-Semites to account.… Read More.

12 Sep 2014
The Buck Stops in the White House

HYDE PARK, N.Y. Franklin D. Roosevelt had the good fortune of Hitler declaring war on the United States just … Read More.

5 Sep 2014
A Bird's-Eye View of Extinction

The end of summer makes melancholy babies of all of us. We're more nervous than usual this year. There's the … Read More.

With Friends Like These

Comment

If Israel won't do it, who will? The Israelis understand that friends, even old friends like the United States, are nice — but nice is never enough. The Europeans, who were saved by outsiders from an evil a lot like radical Islam twice in the previous century, are the last people on earth the Israelis can depend on. And who knows what this American president would do for anybody when crunch comes to crunch? No, if the Israelis are interested in survival, they'll have to do it.

Hamas continues to rearm for more war against Israel, secure from accounting for their atrocities behind the barrier of the double standard. They're aided and abetted by friends in the neighborhood, mostly the Turks, who sponsored the "peace" flotilla intercepted by Israeli commandos early this week.

The arguments continue about the how and when of the Israeli response to the provocation, but never the why. The sponsors of the flotilla, a not-so-obscure "charity" with close ties to Hamas, knew when the boats left Cyprus bound for Gaza that the Israeli navy would intercept them. The sponsors knew why, too: Hamas has been trying for months to open new routes for the rockets, arms and ammunition the Palestinian terrorists intend to fire into Israel to kill Jews. The fewer rockets fired into Israel, the fewer dead Jews. It shouldn't be difficult to understand this.

This preference for life seems a mystery to the Europeans and to some people we expect to know better. David Cameron, the new prime minister of Britain, gives lip service to the ritual promise, "reiterating," in the words of the British Foreign Office, "the United Kingdom's strong commitment to Israel's security." Only don't count on it: The prime minister urged Israel to "respond constructively to legitimate criticisms of its actions, and do everything possible to avoid a repeat of this unacceptable situation."

Cameron, who seems bright enough, "deplored the heavy loss of life off the coast of Gaza," as if unaware of who started the fighting that led to the heavy loss of life.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy was "profoundly shocked" by the Israeli raid, though fortunately for France, not fatally shocked. His Excellency imagines that his contribution to the West's struggle against radical Islam — banning Muslim symbols and headgear in public schools — should be enough.

We're all aware of the French trade in haute couture, but the Israelis are threatened by weapons somewhat deadlier than needle and thread.

The Turkish government is unhappy with the invective against Israel. It was particularly unhappy with President Obama. Trying to find words to satisfy Americans who applaud Israel's grit in the face of provocation while nevertheless appeasing the Democrats on his left who are weary of Jews, Obama merely said he wanted "more information" before he draws conclusions. Fair enough, so far, though the provocation is probably as much to test Barack Obama's professed loyalty to Israel as to provoke Israel.

"I have to be frank," the Turkish foreign minister told reporters in Washington. "I am not very happy with the statement from Washington. We expect a clear condemnation of Israel. We expect full solidarity with us." Something more like the response of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, perhaps. The clown prince of Iran called the Israeli commandos "rabid dogs."

The rabid hysteria in the rest of the world capitals will subside as facts emerge. Searches of the "peace" ship Mava Marmara discovered aid that you wouldn't expect to find on a "peace" ship: bulletproof vests and night-vision goggles, like those worn by Navy Seals. And 50 of the "peace activists" were discovered to be traveling without passports, risky business anywhere, but particularly in the Middle East, and with envelopes stuffed with enormous amounts of cash. Cash, of course, is always welcome, particularly by terrorists.

Several familiar faces were found to be on board when the boats docked under Israeli escort. These included a former American ambassador to Mauritania and a former member of Congress, Cynthia McKinney of Georgia, a longtime supporter of Arab causes and tireless needler of George W. Bush, who she said had advance knowledge of Sept. 11. Raging against Israel is all in the day's work on the goofy American left.

The obvious question to these angry critics of the only democracy in the Middle East is how, if Israel shouldn't do it, can the free nations of the world keep arms from flowing to Hamas? Since the question is never asked, the only conclusion a reasonable man can make is that the free nations of the world don't think disarming terrorists is necessary.

Suzanne Fields is a columnist with The Washington Times. Write to her at: sfields1000@aol.com. To find out more about Suzanne Fields and read her past columns, visit the Creators Syndicate Web page at www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2010 CREATORS.COM



Comments

6 Comments | Post Comment
Can you believe it? I really wanted to like him. I really, really wanted to. Obama made so many missteps, and I wanted to find someone to expose the lack of sober economic thinking the Dems were engaging in.

So sad. But Romney has failed over and over and over again to define himself in a truthful fashion. I really can't figure out who he is, other than a pathological liar. Maybe that's a consequence of his feeling he had to compensate for being an out-of-the-mainstream Mormon. I can't help feeling that's part of the psychological equation, at least. But ultimately, who cares? I need a president I know, or feel I know, and who I can depend on for policy positions I care about. I haven't a clue about where Romney stands on anything.

We've suffered almost 4 hard years of tolerating Obama's training on the job, and it's time for us to reap the benefits of that investment. He is very smart, if not so experienced, but there will be a lot of crucial experience under his belt when we vote next, and we need to have the opportunity to profit from that, finally. Isn't that a sound business decision to make, Mr. Romney?

Romney is jello, we know nothing about what he will really do, and he would have to go through some years himself of on-the-job training too, make no mistake about it. Running business takeovers bears little resemblance to serving as the chief executive and Commander in Chief of the country. There is a lot of new stuff to learn.

So I offer a business case for the reelection of Obama. We have invested heavily in his training. He has learned a lot. We should keep him and start to reap some of the benefits of that painful investment.

If we elect Romney, we have no idea what we have purchased. I'm not ready to make a gamble like that.
Comment: #1
Posted by: Masako
Fri Mar 23, 2012 7:45 PM
There is another potentially fatal flaw in Romney that the mainstream media has not yet touched- his casual regard for the truth. Steve Benen of the Maddow blog puts out a summary of the top weekly lies. But will the media want to touch the idea that a nominee for the Presidency is a common liar?
Comment: #2
Posted by: bob hall
Sat Mar 24, 2012 4:17 AM
The great thing about Romney is that except on tax cuts for the rich (an area where he is hardly neutral) and invading Iran, he either supports your position now or has supported your position in the past. This ability to change positions constantly could well be a positive with undecided voters. By the time of the election who knows what his position on most important issues might be? Of course he would benefit from not changing his position every 24 hours (as he did recently on the birth control debate)!
Comment: #3
Posted by: sound byte
Sat Mar 24, 2012 5:45 AM
Re: sound byte
Romney is an independent moderate, he is now running on positions based upon focus groups, the teaparty, and what will play in small down Evangelical America. He never believed what his campaign advisors are telling him to promote, marketing tests are telling him what to say and where to say it. Do you think the same positions will play in West Hollywood that will play in Jesus Christ, South Carolina, pop 1200? That's why his own advisor called him etch a sketch, unfortunately our media and political system tells candidates what to promote using sound bites and focus groups. That and the fact that the average American is uncurious and dumb as a rock. The candidates play to the audience, dumb and dumber. Shame on us....Shame, shame on us. As long as Joe Bob has a six pack, a bag of Doritos and his cable works he's a happy camper. That's who votes in America. 62% of New Yorkers questioned on the street in Manhatten 8 weeks ago couldn't name the two countries that border the U.S. I'll bet 90% could tell you who Kim Kardahian was married to for 72 days. Reading material? The National Enquirer at Wal Mart. Watch out America, Asia will soon be outsourcing their unattractive to you.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Bloom Hilda
Sat Mar 24, 2012 1:00 PM
Re: Bloom Hilda

Sorry, that was meant to say,
Watch out America, Asia will soon be outsourcing their unattractive JOBS to you.
Bloom
Comment: #5
Posted by: Bloom Hilda
Sat Mar 24, 2012 8:44 PM
Re: sound byte; Dear Sound Byte... What strikes me as unusual in the republicans is their moral tone, not just of majority, but of superiority... What is this besides a cover for their essential immorality???... Certainly, the idea that God will punish a community for all the sins it commits is as old as our earliest dramas, but if we look at the nearness of the word Ethics to Ethnic we can see the relationship clearly of the individual to his community... When we can worry about whether our neighbor is using birth control, and do not care if he is unemployed or has food for his children we are demonstrating the best possible morality, one of choice, and one that makes another feel small -and ourselves large... The finger of blame can point both ways; but clearly, the republicans have lost all sense of the word morality... They cannot treat people at once as a drag on the state, unequal to the laws and rights granted to them by God, and then deserving of their fate by their own sinful behavior... Ask the question: Are they a herd unworthy of consideration, or are they free citizens of a democratic state??? I think the rich are not rich because they are devout and nearer my God to thee, but are that because they are rich, and their religion and morality justify them, and make little demands upon them or upon their wealth... Ethics, on the other hand, morality conceived of as obligation -makes the rich responsible for the poor they make by way of becoming rich... If they think they can better guard the commonwealth by privatizing it, they may well be correct, for no wealth is less certain than wealth with many guards... The commonwealth in few hands must support the same population that it would if in all hands... The commonwealth in private hands is still a trust just as is great authority a trust... We presume a benefit to all of the common property being in the hands of the rich, and we presume so ideologically... If we are not free to challenge this ideology as false, as one leading to the destruction of community, and destruction of polite intercourse with people of all ranks, and eventually the destruction of this nation -and its loss to strangers, then we are not free at all...The difference between the rich and the poor is not money...As long as we have enough money is no object...The difference between us and them, is that the poor think we are one people, and the rich know THEY are one people, and the rest of us are simply hanging onto the rights they have not managed to pry loose from our collective grips...We will be one people when the rich feel they are with us, in the same boat, sinking or swiming with the rest of us, and no better than; and not too good to pay something in taxes for the good they get... Thanks... Sweeney
Comment: #6
Posted by: James A, Sweeney
Sun Mar 25, 2012 11:04 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Suzanne Fields
Sep. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
31 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
28 29 30 1 2 3 4
About the author About the author
Write the author Write the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month
Walter Williams
Walter E. WilliamsUpdated 24 Sep 2014
Deb Saunders
Debra J. SaundersUpdated 21 Sep 2014
Lawrence Kudlow
Lawrence KudlowUpdated 20 Sep 2014

22 Apr 2011 A Melting Pot Gone Cold

15 Jan 2010 Can the Internet Change How You Think?

6 Mar 2008 The Assassins Among Us: An Unspoken Fear Stalks the Presidential Hustings