What the Price of Democracy Should Be

I reiterate that this Blog is not intended to be a "me, too" type media organ.  I post on it when I (A) am inspired by an event or an idea to express myself; (B) have a clear vision or a definitive conundrum; and (C) believe that, at the moment, nobody else in the world is expressing the view in quite the same way as I am.

Of course, I do have some very strong and unabashedly pro-Israel sentiments regarding the current conflict between Israel and Hamas.  But, until now, hundreds if not thousands of like-minded authors have already expressed essentially what has been coursing through my brain on the matter; until now, I have had nothing material to add.

But now, I wish to express a sentiment which has gotten little if any traction in the media, mainstream or otherwise.

The Hamas government now in Gaza was elected by the people of Gaza through the democratic election process.  While the quality of the ballot-casting and vote-counting in the process may or may not pass muster by what, until now, have been the standards in America (which, in turn, may or may not be fulfilled in any given electoral district in any given election), it nevertheless is a reflection of the collective sentiment of the denizens of Gaza.  And this sentiment is not limited to the ballot box.  Gaza Arabs do willingly support and willingly collaborate in many of the Hamas policies and activities, including and especially those policies and activities that are hostile to Jews.  And make no mistake about it -- Hamas and its retinue would not hesitate to do the same to the people of America if geography and logistics were conducive to it.

Israel should, of course, make reasonable efforts to minimize civilian casualties to the extent it can do so while protecting its own people, civilian and otherwise. And I hasten to note that many of the casualties reported by Hamas, the UN, and/or the media as being civilians were in fact active combatants in the service of Hamas.

And, of course, much of the tunnel construction work was done by child slave labor -- Hamas using Arab children to do the work.  Where are the anti-sweatshop people on this one?

But the people of Gaza are now in a situation in which they had a hand in making.

I would like to see a peaceful resolution of the current situation in Gaza.  The reality, however, is that the Arab world typically gets itself into an unstable situation, asks the West to extricate it from that situation, and then stymies all Western attempts at resolution.  This pattern is once again replaying in Gaza.

And so, while I certainly do not advocate the intentional directed killing of civilians in Gaza (regardless of whether by Israeli operations or by Hamas operations), neither am I overwrought with extreme guilt or pity for those civilians in Gaza who are victims of collateral damage by Israel's efforts to protect its residents from the excesses of Hamas emanating from Gaza.

Doggone Mullahs!

Even though our household currently has no pets, canine or otherwise, my wife and I do consider ourselves to be dog lovers.  At this time, our respective routines and schedules would not allow us to give pets the attention they need and deserve.

But one need not be an active cynophile to understand the significance of the ongoing efforts by the Iranian government to ban or otherwise restrict the keeping of dogs as pets.

This tells me all that I need to know about the regime in Teheran (though it cannot be said that I didn't already have a clue).

Those who abuse dogs will usually go on to abuse people.

British Plans Gang Agley in Benghazi

This one here is now making the e-mail rounds: Libyans desecrating the British Benghazi War Cemetery in Libya, as an exemplar of why we shouldn't help Arab countries. And I agree that the video makes crystal clear as to what to expect from the Arab nations. The video speaks for itself. It needs to go viral!

But I also note that several Scottish regiments are represented amongst the burials in that cemetery, including the Black Watch, the Gordon Highlanders, the Queens Own Cameron Highlanders and the Scots Guards. And additionally, there are many a Scottish name to be found amongst the listings from British Army regiments which are not distinctly Scottish.

I cannot help but wonder whether, in the cosmic scheme of karma, there might be some sort of payback element for the Scottish Ministry of Justice's release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi, the so-called Lockerbie Bomber.

The Egyptian Plague

Egypt has long been susceptible to plagues. Though the incident of the Ten Plagues in the time of Moses is the most well known, plagues have afflicted Egypt numerous times since.

The typical pattern is that the plague originates elsewhere, but is somehow brought to Egypt, where it quickly mutates and expands and becomes epidemic, often afflicting lands beyond Egypt. Such was the case of the plague described by Thucydides in his History of the Peloponnesian War (he himself had a bout with the plague). The plague that affected the war between Athens and Sparta originated in Ethiopia or other parts up the Nile, came to Egypt, and then went to Libya and Greece.

Today, Egypt is afflicted with a different kind of plague. This plague is political unrest. In this case, the "plague" originated in Tunisia, and now, there is rioting and looting in the streets of Cairo. The regime of Hosni Mubarak is seriously threatened.

My comments:

(1) Egypt is, to be sure, a pharaonic dictatorship where human rights are severely restricted. Mubarak, like his predecessors Sadat and Nasser, is a corruptocrat who has allowed his people to languish in poverty, and cares only for his personal aggrandizement. But if his regime is overthrown, will the next one give the Egyptians any more personal freedoms? I remember the overthrow of the Shah in Iran, and, as we see to this very day, the Islamicist regime of Khomeini and his successors is far, far more repressive than that of the Shah.

(2) Senator Rand Paul has been talking about cutting aid to Israel as a means to help balance the Federal budget. This raises several issues:

(A) Without accusing the Senator of anything, my inborn Jewish paranoia makes me wonder whether Rand Paul's position is born of some sort of personal dislike for the Jewish people. I have never met Senator Paul (though I have personally met his father and the experience made me very wary of him, notwithstanding my approval of many of his "on paper" ideas), and am not in a position to make a conclusive judgment in that regard.

(B) American foreign policy has long been to provide aid to the Arab and Muslim nations in order to keep Israel dependent upon American foreign aid. All else being equal, if American foreign aid to Egypt and the other Arab countries is significantly reduced then much of the foreign aid dollars to Israel would become unnecessary.

(C) But all else is not equal. Specifically, if America cuts aid to Egypt, then it will surely seek out other patrons to fund it. These patrons can be Saudi Arabia or Iran.

(D) More to the point: If the United States pulls its funding from Egypt, then Russia and/or China would likely consider filling the vacuum.


This plague in Egypt will make lots of people very, very sick!

Tickling the Ivories

My daily reading menu includes the Federal Register. In the big law firms, one or more junior associates are stuck with that task, and they are expected to bring pertinent matters in the daily Federal Register to the attention of one or more partners. As a solo practitioner, it falls upon me to do the daily Federal Register duty.

In today's Federal Register, there is an item from the Treasury's Office of Foreign Assets Control, "Designation Pursuant to Executive Order 13396 of February 7, 2006, 'Blocking Property of Certain Persons Contributing to the Conflict in Cote d'Ivoire.' "

The designation essentially freezes the United States property of Laurent Gbagbo and his wife and close associates. Gbagbo, for the uninitiated, is one of the contenders for the disputed Presidency of the Ivory Coast (or Cote d'Ivoire en Francais). His opponent, Alassane Ouattara, also claims victory in the disputed 2010 election. Most of the international community recognizes Ouattara as the legitimate winner of the election, though there were, to say the least, irregularities on either side.

I am no great fan of Gbagbo, nor of Ouattara. Africa is not noted for its effective governments or skilled native statesmen. I take no position as to who should be the rightful winner of the election. Neither of them can be trusted any further than one can throw the Empire State Building.

I am, however, concerned as to the baggage that Ouattara might be carrying. Gbagbo is a Christian. Ouattara is from a Muslim tribe and has connections to Burkina Faso. I am concerned that a regime under Ouattara might be more conducive to Islamist terrorist activity against the West than would a Gbagbo regime.

This is not to say that Ouattara should be opposed merely because he is a Muslim. It is not to say that he is not the legitimate winner of the Presidency of the Ivory Coast. It is not to say that the nations of the world should not recognize him as the President of the Ivory Coast. It is not to say that Gbagbo's insurgency should be tolerated by America and the world.

But on the opposite side of the African continent there is another election in progress as I write this posting. It is a referendum on the question of independence for Southern Sudan. By all accounts, a vote in favor of independence is almost a forgone conclusion.

But the Sudan conflict is also, in essence, a Muslim-Christian war. It is fair to ask the question as to the chances of a militant Islamic insurgency taking control in the nominally independent Southern Sudan. And it is fair to ask whether, in such an event, such an insurgency would be tolerated by Barack Hussein Obama and the world.

Accessing the Mosque

A Saudi judge has asked several hospitals in the country whether they could damage a man's spinal cord as punishment after he was convicted of attacking another man with a cleaver and paralyzing him.

This should tell anyone who, heretofore, was uninformed and/or in denial, all they need to know about what imposition of the Muslim Sharia law would mean to our freedoms in America.

Whether of not the Saudis actually inflict such a barbaric punishment is of little moment -- the fact that the Saudi judge even made the inquiry speaks volumes. Given that the Saudis have already co-opted at least one dentist to inflict a punitive whole-mouth tooth extraction upon a Saudi convict, the Saudi medical establishment is already perverted enough to crank out paraplegics and quadriplegics in the name of Islam.

As noted by Herbert London, The Ground Zero Mosque is, in all likelihood, financed by the Saudis. Which means that the Mosque, if built, would have the Saudi brand of Islamism. And, Saudi money or not, there can be little doubt that the construction of the Mosque at Ground Zero is viewed by the Islamists as a step towards the conquest of America, and the eventual imposition of Muslim Sharia law.

The New York City Department of Buildings will, no doubt, review the plans for the Mosque to ensure that it will be wheelchair-accessible.

Religion of Arson

The big wildfires in Australia suggest some factoid dots to connect:

On 7 September 2008, Josh Gordon reported in The Age that "Australia has been singled out as a target for 'forest jihad' by a group of Islamic extremists urging Muslims to deliberately light bushfires as a weapon of terror."

This is nothing new. During the 1980's and 1990's (and even later), the Muslims were setting fires to forests in Israel.

More to the point, the Land of Israel has only been verdant with vegetation when it has been in the hands of Jews. It was a largely wasteland when it was in the hands of Muslims.

And during the height of the Roman Empire, before Muhammad and Islam, North Africa's littoral plain on the Mediterranean Sea produced and exported grain and other agricultural produce to Rome.



Something to think about! Is the so-called "Religion of Peace" really the Religion of Arson? It certainly is not the Religion of Sound Agricultural Practices.

No Tip for This Waiter

The story in Newsday (to which I unhappily subscribe because it is (maybe) a half-step better the New York Times, the only other viable daily rag on Long Island now that the New York Sun has folded) is "Waiter Serves Fear at Wedding" by Matthew Chayes, Newsday, 10 January 2009, p. A13.

The first paragraph is as follows:

"A waiter at a Jewish wedding who is considering converting to Islam interrupted the celebration's final prayers with recorded Arabic chants of "God is great," sparking fear among the 700 guests of a terrorist attack, Nassau police said Friday."

And now Thomas H. Spreer, Esq., Stephen Buttafuoco's lawyer, trained in the art of criminal defense, is calling the felony aggravated harassment charge "heavy-handed."

My first impulse is to agree with Mr. Spreer. Buttafuoco claims, and not without credibility, that he wasn't aware that the sound bite would be piped over the PA system throughout the building. Seems like a sophomoric prank by a 23-year-old of teenage maturity. It's kind of picayune and penny-ass.

But the deeper I read, the more convinced I am that the DA is coddling Buttafuoco a bit too much. Specifically, (1) Buttafuoco admits that he was trying to privately disrespect Judaism; and (2) Buttafuoco is now curious about converting to Islam.

Those of you from Denmark might correct me if I am mistaken, but it is my understanding that according to Islamic teachings, Muslims are required to kill those who insult Islam.

But this is America, where there should be no religious favoritism. Accordingly, Buttafuoco should be charged not merely with a felony, but with a capital offense!

Unfortunately, even wanton premeditating cop-killers are not subject to capital punishment in New York, thanks to the sob sisters on the New York Court of Appeals.

Probably the most realistic scenario is that Buttafuoco will exhibit enough contrition (or at least appear sufficiently contrite) to do a plea deal for no jail time. And if the hosts of the wedding (and/or the bride and groom) are so inclined, they might file a purely civil lawsuit against Buttafuoco and sue the beitzim off of him.

Johnny I Hardly Knew Ye

Three years ago this past summer, the Israeli government forcefully removed all of the Jews from Gaza. A Judenrein Gaza, the theory went, would go a long way towards placating the Arabs there and induce them to make peace with Israel.

Almost every day since, the Hamas terrorists have launched rockets from Gaza into Israel with impunity. Moreover, most of the rockets are specifically aimed not at military targets, but at civilian communities.

For reasons having to do more with Israeli partisan politics than any principles of integrity, the government of Israel has finally, at long last, done what virtually every other government elsewhere on the planet would have done after three days -- Responded with military force!

So now, I just got an e-mail from the UJA-Federation of New York, copying its website posting, entitled "UJA-Federation Response to Israel Crisis." For the uninitiated, the United Jewish Appeal - Federation is the charitable fundraising apparatus of the so-called "Jewish Establishment." I call it the "Judenrat," for it tends to pander to the leftward-leaning elements of the Jewish population by effectively apologizing for staunch adherence to Torah values and Jewish strength. Needless to say, I am not and have never been one of their regular contributors. Liberals, as many of you have surely realized, are hung up on victimhood and guilt, and become most apologetic whenever they escape victimhood and become successful.

The NY UJA-Federation, from time to time, sponsors seminars which qualify for Mandatory Continuing Legal Education credits, of which I and other New York attorneys must rack up twelve per year in order to retain good standing to practice law. The costs of the UJA-Federation seminars, on a per-credit-hour basis, is typically very competitive, and so, as a result of my attendance at one such event a number of years back, I am on the Judenrat's e-mail and snail mail lists (though, in all fairness to UJA-Federation, they are not nearly so obnoxious in their use of these lists as are many other organizations).

But I digress. The first 4 paragraphs of the E-mail I just received read as follows:

================
"The government of Israel has initiated military efforts to bring peace to its southern area and the border with Gaza.

These efforts were undertaken after the inhabitants of Sderot and neighboring communities endured months of missile barrages emanating from the Gaza Strip. And it ought to be noted, those missiles were launched after Israel unilaterally withdrew from Gaza, providing the Palestinians with the opportunity to live side-by-side in peace with Israel.

The results — whhat we are reading about and viewing on TV today — are tragic foor all people in the region.

The Israeli government concluded there is no alternative but to undertake an effort to end the rocket attacks and violence, so the people of Israel's south can live in peace. We mourn the loss of innocent life on both sides of the border, and we join with all people of good will in hoping that these efforts are successful in ending the threat and reality of missiles hitting civilian communities."

=================

The e-mail/web posting appears over the signatures of John M. Shapiro, UJA-Federation President; Jerry W. Levin, Chair of the Board; and John S. Ruskay, Executive VP and CEO. The e-mail, in fact, is from Ruskay.

I am old enough to remember who John Ruskay is. Back in the 1970's and the 1980's, John Ruskay, son of a successful garment industrialist, was active in supporting the so-called "Peace Now" movement in Israel, which advocated a withdrawal from Gaza and Judea and Samaria.

In full-page advertisements that appeared in the New York Times on 20 January 1988, p. B6 and 26 January 1988, p. A22, Ruskay was among the Peace Now signatories who advocated "against the occupation, for territorial compromise." Ruskay was a signatory to a full-page ad with a similar message that appeared in the New York Times on 16 March 1988, p. B2.

Well, Israel DID withdraw from Gaza, and look what is now happening! Israel got itself into its current jam by pursuing the very policies advocated by Ruskay 20 and 30 years ago!

So now, I get this e-mail from John Ruskay, incredulous at the perfidy of the Arabs after Israel showed its good faith (read "stupidity") by withdrawing from Gaza, and beseeching me to make a donation to help alleviate the suffering!

The basic fault is the fallacious presumption that the Arabs are capable of negotiating in good faith with the Jews. This is clearly not the case. Nor can the Arabs be trusted by anyone else! Leftists cannot recognize that there is such thing as evil people. Hamas hates the Jews and wants to kill us! Period! End of Statement. The only thing they understand is strength and force turned against them!

As for Ruskay, he differs hardly one iota from the arsonist who rushes to the conflagration he himself ignited, urinates into the flames, while proclaiming to the world that he is helping to extinguish the fire!

Terror in the Dentist's Office

When you find a good dentist (or, for that matter, any other healthcare professional), you stick with him/her. Finding a family dentist is a special challenge for my household because my wife's father was a very prominent dentist. Since he suddenly passed away 25 year ago, my wife can never really, truly be totally satisfied with any other dentist.

Recognizing her extreme biases in the matter, my wife did, after some experimentation, find a local dentist to whose office she could bring herself without too much compunction. He was very excellent and well reputed (my wife even had occasion to recommend him to others), but he passed away at a relatively young age. His junior associate took over the practice, and that is who we now use for our dental care. My wife's personal hang-ups notwithstanding, we are quite pleased with the arrangement. I will note he does the cleaning himself; unlike his departed mentor (and, for that matter, my wife's late father), he doesn't delegate the work to his dental assistant. This gives him better opportunity to comprehend what actually is going on in his patients' mouths.

A few days ago I went to our dentist for my semiannual cleaning and x-rays. The visit was unremarkable as far as my dental health goes. What was remarkable was that the background music played during my visit consisted of one of Cat Stevens's albums.

Other than my own interactions, I don't know too much about the business side of my dentist's practice. I'm certainly not about to tell him how to run his practice (and, as mentioned, my family is quite satisfied with the quality of dental care he provides). Specifically, I do not know his arrangements for procuring the office background music, and I have no present plans to ask.

But I am sure that all intellectual property rights are duly honored and enforced in the arrangement. Which means that the artist formerly known as Cat Stevens (and before that, Steven Georgiou) and now known as Yusuf Islam, somehow receives his royalties for the music played in my dentist's office.

There are some serious questions as to whether the money that supports Stevens/Islam also supports terrorism. This is not based upon the mere fact that Stevens/Islam has embraced the Muslim faith, but upon his statements and actions and activities.

It is rather disconcerting to think that a person such as my dentist helps to support terrorism. But the royalty money for Stevens/Islam that comes from my dentist is probably far, far less than the terrorist support that comes from the typical American driver's gasoline purchases.