"If you care about Israel’s security, vote for McCain."

One of the Chicago Boyz, David Foster, tells us that Israelis Support John McCain.

…most of them do, anyhow. Polls show that 70% of Israelis would vote for McCain if they were eligible to vote in the U.S. election.

And some of them are. There are an estimated 40,000 Americans residing in Israel who are eligible to cast absentee ballots, and many of them will be voting in swing states. The chairman of Republicans Abroad in Israel predicts a 75% vote for McCain, although other reports show a large number of undecideds.

Read the rest of it and find out why.

"Is America Really Going To Do This?"

Nashville blogger Kay Brooks highly recommends Melanie Phillips' latest contribution to the British Spectator in her post Getting down to brass tacks. Phillips, a brilliant author (most recent book: Londonistan) and essayist, asks in disbelief, Is America really going to do this?

Kay was particularly struck by these words

McCain believes in protecting and defending America as it is. Obama tells the world he is ashamed of America and wants to change it into something else. McCain stands for American exceptionalism, the belief that American values are superior to tyrannies. Obama stands for the expiation of America’s original sin in oppressing black people, the third world and the poor.

about which she commented "That's as succinctly worded a paragraph about the difference between these two men as I've read thus far."

Particularly for those with an interest in Israel and its fate, I'd recommend reading Melanie Phillips' entire essay. It will be well worth your time.

The Roots of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict

The Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal.com has republished an outstanding May 8, 2008 Commentary article by Efraim Karsh which will be of interest to anyone curious about the causes of the seemingly insoluble Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Here's the WSJ's brief description:

An exhaustive review of the archival evidence tells a ruinous tale of villainy and betrayal.

Here's the lede:

Sixty years after its establishment by an internationally recognized act of self-determination, Israel remains the only state in the world that is subjected to a constant outpouring of the most outlandish conspiracy theories and blood libels; whose policies and actions are obsessively condemned by the international community; and whose right to exist is constantly debated and challenged not only by its Arab enemies but by segments of advanced opinion in the West.

During the past decade or so, the actual elimination of the Jewish state has become a cause célèbre among many of these educated Westerners. The "one-state solution," as it is called, is a euphemistic formula proposing the replacement of Israel by a state, theoretically comprising the whole of historic Palestine, in which Jews will be reduced to the status of a permanent minority. Only this, it is said, can expiate the "original sin" of Israel's founding, an act built (in the words of one critic) "on the ruins of Arab Palestine" and achieved through the deliberate and aggressive dispossession of its native population.

This claim of premeditated dispossession and the consequent creation of the longstanding Palestinian "refugee problem" forms, indeed, the central plank in the bill of particulars pressed by Israel's alleged victims and their Western supporters. It is a charge that has hardly gone undisputed. As early as the mid-1950s, the eminent American historian J.C. Hurewitz undertook a systematic refutation, and his findings were abundantly confirmed by later generations of scholars and writers. Even Benny Morris, the most influential of Israel's revisionist "new historians," and one who went out of his way to establish the case for Israel's "original sin," grudgingly stipulated that there was no "design" to displace the Palestinian Arabs.

The recent declassification of millions of documents from the period of the British Mandate (1920-48) and Israel's early days, documents untapped by earlier generations of writers and ignored or distorted by the "new historians," paints a much more definitive picture of the historical record. These documents reveal that the claim of dispossession is not only completely unfounded but the inverse of the truth. What follows is based on fresh research into these documents, which contain many facts and data hitherto unreported.

I'd heartily recommend clicking the link "1948, Israel and the Palestinians: The True Story" and reading the whole thing. Even if you think you're pretty well checked out on the momentous events of that time, you'll learn a few things you never knew before, and gain a new understanding of the problem.

Just A Thought

Late news story: "Hawaiian Sovereignty Activists Barricade Iolani Palace".

As I write this, the matter has not been resolved. The Hawaiian authorities are taking a low-key approach, and hope to settle this without resort to force.

But suppose they can't? What do you suppose would happen if this situation drags on for days or weeks?

After all, there are some countries out there that do not wish us well. What would happen if one or two of them were to take an interest in this matter, and use it to poke Uncle Sam in the eye a bit?

Remember that in the very recent past, the United States intervened to enable part of another sovereign nation, the province of Kosovo, to secede and form an independent country. Russia, as Serbia's closest ally, was mightily displeased, and not without reason. Kosovo had been an integral part of Serbia for about 800 years – many times longer than Hawaii has been a part of the United States.

Unlikely as it would be, just suppose that Russia got together with its ally, China, and decided to intervene on behalf of the "Hawaiian Kingdom Government". Let's say that they decide to bring the matter up before the United Nations, they succeed in initiating a discussion by the Security Council, and the result is that the UN decides to intervene. What would we do? Would we just tell them in diplo-speak to mind their own business? Or, more typically, would we allow such a charade to proceed on the grounds that otherwise, the rest of the world might not love us?

Fast forward a couple of years. After duly investigating the situation, appointing dozens of committees, and sending a succession of highly-paid "rapporteurs" to Hawaii at UN (read: our) expense, the Security Council decides that the "Hawaiian Kingdom Government" is, in fact, the legitimate government of Hawaii. The Security Council then votes to order us to allow Hawaii to secede and declare its independence. What would we do then? Would we finally put a stop to the nonsense by exercising our veto as a Permanent Member of the Security Council? Or would we recuse ourselves on the grounds that it would be somehow unfair for us to throw our weight around?

Serbia tried to tell the UN and the US to mix out. They argued that Kosovo was an integral part of Serbia, and that its problems were a purely internal matter. It did them no good, of course, because in any clash with the UN and the US as its policeman, Serbia would be helpless, and everyone knew it. Their ally, Russia, disapproved strongly of what we did, but fortunately, not strongly enough to attempt to help the Serbs with military force.

So what do you suppose we'd do if this little scenario were to play out as I have described it? Would we do as Serbia did and argue that Hawaii is an integral part of the United States, and therefore, its internal problems are off-limits to the UN? Obviously, the big difference is that we have the power to insure that Hawaii doesn't secede – if we choose to exercise it. Or would we accept the judgment of the UN and set a date for Hawaiian Independence Day?

Just a thought.

The UN: Good news/bad news

Meryl Yourish runs one of the best blogs in the business, and has actually been at it longer than Glenn "InstaPundit" Reynolds. She's always well worth reading, but today, she really outdid herself with this post: "The UN: Good news/bad news". Go read it, and while you're there, you might want to check out some of her other superb writing.