Israel Does NOT Belong to All Jews

Do all Jews, wherever they may live have a stake in the present and future of the State of Israel? Absolutely!  But does Israel belong to all Jewish people, regardless of whether or not they live there? Absolutely not!  I know I'm going against the grain here, because most Jews will probably tell you that Israel belongs to all of the Jewish people.  Heck, most of Israel's leaders, including our current prime minister, would say that Israel belongs to all Jews, regardless of where they live.  But as an ardent supporter of Israel and an Israeli citizen, I'm afraid I must disagree with the notion that Israel belongs to all Jews.  After all, Israel is a modern, democratic state; and a modern, democratic state belongs to its citizens and no one else.  In other words, Israel belongs to Israelis and no one else.

I look at it this way.  If an American who can trace his ancestry all the way back to the British colonization of North America insinuated that the U.K. belongs to him and all people of British descent, he would probably be laughed at.  Yet the notion that Israel belongs to all Jews is widely accepted among Jewish people around the world.  In fact, I'll be very surprised if some people reading this don't write back to me and tell me that I'm crazy or insult me in some other way.  The fact of the matter is that Israel does not belong to all Jewish people, anymore than the U.K. belongs to all people of British descent, France to all people of French descent, Ireland to all people of Irish descent and so forth.  I do understand that most people whose backgrounds come from places where they are not currently living have some sort of connection to the "old country" in terms of the their culture, beliefs or some other characteristics, but that doesn't mean that they consider whatever their "old country" is to belong to them, unless of course they were born in that country or are citizens of that country living abroad.

I also do not dispute the inherent right of all Jews to live in Israel.  Contrary to what some of Israel's critics want you to believe, it is common practice among many countries, not just Israel, to have some kind of law of return that allows a person whose origins lie in the country in question to come and live in that country.  Yes, all Jews have the right to live in Israel.  However, until Jews from the diaspora become Israeli citizens, they have no reasonable grounds to say that Israel belongs to them.       

  

Other Arabs Condemn Terrorism Against Israel, But Palestinians Continue to Support It

After four Israeli civilians were shot and killed by Palestinian terrorists this past week, leading Arab citizens in Israel quickly condemned the attack and called for peace (see: Israeli Arabs: Attackers 'don't deserve air to breathe').  Another call of condemnation came from a very unlikely source: the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.  In the minds of many, including myself, Saudi Arabia is the main breeding ground and primary source of Islamic fundamentalist-inspired terrorism in the world.  Yet, the Saudi media was actually talking about the attack in Tel Aviv as an act of terrorism.  WOW!  And the Saudis weren't alone.  A noted Egyptian journalist and former candidate for her country's presidency also decried the attack (see: Egyptian journalist condemns Tel Aviv Terror: 'What's heroic about shooting people?').  Maybe the folks in the Arab world are starting to wise up, eh?  Well, let's not get carried away with hope just yet.

The handful of people in the Arab world who condemned the terrorist attack in Tel Aviv were still drowned out by the masses who took to social media to praise and celebrate the attacks.  There was also no condemnation of the attacks on the Palestinian street.  Instead, the Palestinians reacted the same way they always have - by singing songs of praise for the terrorists and passing out candies to celebrate the murder of Israeli civilians (see: Palestinians celebrate terror attack in Tel Aviv, Saudis strongly condemn).  Yes, the Palestinians still don't get it and I don't understand why, because decades of terrorism have still not yielded the Palestinians the freedom they seek; it's just made their lives harder and more miserable.  Now, for instance, more than eighty thousand Palestinians have had their entry permits to Israel revoked in response to the attack in Tel Aviv.  That's more than eighty thousand Palestinians who won't be able to visit their families during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan.  So can someone please tell me how terrorism makes things better for the Palestinians? Other Arabs are slowly starting to discover that terrorism against Israel doesn't pay.  It's a pity that the Palestinians can't do the same.          

Celebrating Jerusalem's Reunification and Liberation

Israel has just finished celebrating the 49th anniversary of Jerusalem's liberation and reunification. As we should all know, during the Six Day War in 1967, Israel defeated the armies of several Arab states for the second time since the first Arab-Israeli war in 1948. The Israeli military captured the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan Heights and the Biblical heartland of the Jewish people in Judea and Samaria. But I think most people would agree that Israel's greatest prize in the Six Day War was the reunification of Jerusalem after nineteen years of division.  East Jerusalem was liberated from the grip of the Hashemite dictatorship and reunified with the Israel-controlled west.

My father, who fought in the Six Day War, has told me stories about the liberation.  He still remembers walking through the Old City and visiting the Western Wall for the first time, where he and his fellow soldiers cried like babies, overjoyed at liberating Judaism's holiest site.  He also remembers how his father was able to see friends that he hadn't seen since the city was divided after the War of Independence.  It was truly a joyous time for the people of Israel.

Today, Jerusalem is a modern metropolis mixed in with the ancient parts of the city that date back to biblical times.  It's hard to believe that just a century ago, Jerusalem was a shell of its former glory. In the waning years of the Ottoman Empire, the city was nothing more than a backwater with little commerce and little hope for the future.  This began to change when Jews began returning to what has always been their capital.  During the British mandate period, new neighborhoods sprang up in the city and modern infrastructure began being built.  After the War of Independence, Jerusalem became the capitol of the Nation of Israel for the first time in two thousand years.  Unfortunately, the eastern side of the city would continue to be neglected until its liberation in 1967.  My father told me about how filthy the Old City was when it was liberated.  There was so much garbage and excrement that you could barely walk through the streets.  He even said that the military command issued a warning to soldiers not to eat the produce sold in the markets because it was watered with sewer water.  Thankfully, Israel cleaned up the mess that the Hashemites left and turned the Old City back into a thriving center of commerce and tourism, as well as a free place of worship for the followers of Judaism, Christianity and Islam.

Israel also showed a great deal of moral strength when it liberated eastern Jerusalem.  It would have been easy, for example, for the Israelis to destroy the Dome of the Rock, the Al-Aqsa Mosque and the other Muslim holy shrines that Arab and Muslim conquerors had built so that Solomon's Temple could be resurrected in their place.  But they didn't. Instead, they turned control of the sites on the Temple Mount over to the officials comprising the Islamic trust or Waqf and allowed Muslims to worship there freely to this day.  Critics of Israel often complain about how the Israeli authorities sometimes prevent some Muslim worshipers from praying on the Mount for security reasons.  My response to them is to ask how many Jews were allowed to worship at the Western Wall when it was under Hashemite rule.  The answer?  Not one!

In fact, inasmuch as Arab residents of Jerusalem complain about being neglected and persecuted by Israel - even to the extent that some have recently taken part in stabbing and vehicular attacks against Jewish Jerusalemites - polls have shown that the city's Arabs would rather be ruled by Israel than by a future Palestinian state.  It's probably because they know that they have freedom in Israel that people living in the Arab states can only dream of.  Unfortunately, however, there are still those in the so-called peace camp that seek to physically divide the city just as it was divided before.  As a person who is descended from a family that has lived in Jerusalem for five generations, I can say that physically dividing the city again would be like slicing my heart and the hearts of many others into pieces.  It cannot be allowed to happen!    

Israel Should Cherish Its Independence and Support Those Who Don't Yet Have It

Israel has just celebrated the 68th anniversary of its independence.  No Israeli who is loyal to the state takes the country's independence for granted, nor should they ever.  After all, we as a people waited two thousand years to restore our sovereignty in our ancestral homeland.  And we'll be damned if we let anyone take it away from us!  But whenever we celebrate our independence, I believe we should also think about the peoples of the world who have not yet achieved self-determination. There are countless groups of people in the world today who don't have a nation-state to call their own and who are fighting valiantly for the opportunity to achieve independence, sometimes sacrificing their lives, just as many Israelis have sacrificed theirs in order to gain and retain our sovereignty.  In fact, I would say that if we truly value our own freedom, we should support those who do not yet have it.

What do I mean by support?  To put it succinctly, I mean that Israel should offer moral, financial and even military support to peoples fighting for their right to independence, so long as doing so does not endanger its own security.  Actually, helping certain peoples to attain self-determination may enhance Israel's security interests.  For example, helping the Kurds of Syria, Iraq, Iran and Turkey to achieve independence would gain Israel a valuable ally in the region.  Israel and the Kurds already have mutual enemies, so it is only natural that we be on friendly terms with them and help each other out. In fact, it is generally known that Israel and the Kurds have cooperated on more than one occasion.

There are others who could use Israel's help and with whom we share common enemies.  Indeed, the dwindling Christian populations of the Middle East, especially the ones who have fallen victim to the atrocities of the so-called Islamic State, could certainly use a loyal friend since their fellow Christians in the Western world have largely abandoned them.  Ideally, Israel would back every group of people who have a legitimate claim to an independent nation-state.  I would love it, for example, if Israel's leaders publicly supported independence for the peoples of Scotland, Catalonia and Quebec.  But of course, Israel does not exist in an ideal world, so it would be impractical for me to expect our leaders to publicly support every righteous cause for independence. Still, there are cases in which Israel can and should support a people's struggle for self-determination while maintaining and even enhancing its national security interests.               

Raising Minimum Wages is Hardly Misguided

Today I read an article penned by two men from the Fraser Institute, who argued that it was wrong for governments across Canada to be hiking minimum wages (Misguided minimum wage policies hurt workers).  The Fraser Institute is well-known for its conservative economic ideas.  In many cases, I agree with what folks from this think-tank have to say, but in this case I think that they couldn't be more wrong.

The two co-authors of the aforementioned article argue that most people who are in minimum wage jobs do not actually come from low-income households.  Many of them are young people who are still living with their parents.  I wonder, has it ever occurred to the folks at the Fraser Institute that these young people are still living with their parents because they can't earn enough to live on their own?  I guess not.  Indeed, for a lot of compassion-less conservatives out there, low wage work is all about paying your dues.  Yes, I agree that when a person begins entering the workforce, he or she cannot expect an executive-level salary. I also contend, however, that no worker, especially a young person who's trying to pay for school or at least make enough money to live out on his or her own needs to accept a wage that keeps them in perpetual poverty.

We now live in a country where good jobs with good salaries are extremely hard to come by. Instead, many people are forced to make do with precarious employment that offers no job security and no benefits.  So I would say that if this is the only kind of employment that many folks can get, particularly when they're young and just starting out in the workforce, the least employers can do is pay them a living wage.  Now of course, some people on the right, like the two men that wrote the article that appeared in the Toronto Sun, will always tell you that when governments raise the minimum wage, employers are less likely to hire and more likely to get rid of workers to keep costs down.  I don't believe this argument for a second.  In fact, I would contend that whether the minimum wage is as low as $10 per hour or as high as $20 per hour, all businesses will try to employ as few people as possible so that they can make as much profit as possible.  It's just a basic principle of capitalism, people!  If you want to make more money, you want less people doing more work.  Is it any wonder then why multi-million or even multi-billion dollar corporations that make record profits still manage to find excuses to lay off workers?

The truth is that as long as minimum wages stay too low for people to live on, many will be trapped in a cycle of poverty.  Young people in particular will be the biggest losers.  Many of them will end up living with their parents well into their 30's because they can't earn enough money to live on their own.  Would the folks at the Fraser Institute like to tell me how this is good for the economy?  It doesn't take an economist to know that people in low-wage jobs will contribute less in taxes and won't have any disposable income to spend on anything but the essentials. Indeed, any economist will probably tell you that when people don't have money, they don't buy things, so the people who sell those things make less money, forcing them to cut back on their own purchases and lay off workers. So I just don't see how keeping wages low, especially minimum wages that are themselves usually not enough for people to live on, is going to make our economy better.

Liberals' Cynical Use of Immigrants Continues

Last week, I read that Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's government plans to get rid of the language requirements for new immigrants to Canada.  Whereas his father sought to create a country where everyone spoke both English and French, his son seems to be intent on creating a country where people speak neither English nor French.  I wasn't surprised to hear about this latest move by our new Liberal taskmasters.  It just confirmed my worst fear that the government of Trudeau the younger would take multiculturalism where it has never gone before.  Furthermore, the Liberals have become emboldened by the popularity of their actions on the Syrian refugee crisis.  Indeed, it seems that as soon as the Grits swept to power, almost everyone in Canada started hopping on the refugee bandwagon.  By now, maybe you're asking me if I oppose taking in Syrian refugees.  Certainly not! In fact, I'm very happy that the new government of Canada has undertaken a massive effort to bring refugees from Syria into this country.  What I question is the motivation behind this effort. Trudeau's Liberals would have you believe that they're helping these people out of compassion.  Yeah, right. There is only one reason that the Liberals are taking in thousands of Syrian refugees and it can all be summed up in one word: votes.

Now just to be fair, all parties in Canada try to use the so-called immigrant or ethnic vote to their advantage.  But no one does this better and more successfully than the Liberal Party, going back to the days of the first Prime Minister Trudeau.  In fact, Pierre Trudeau didn't just use immigration to get votes.  He used to it re-make Canada in his image.  For instance, Trudeau flooded his home province of Quebec with immigrants whom he believed would become loyal federalists and Liberal voters.  Does anyone remember the 1995 Quebec referendum when then provincial premier, Jacques Parizeau blamed the defeat of the independence campaign on money and the "ethnic vote"?  A lot of people, including myself at the time, believed that his remarks constituted outright racism.  But the truth isn't so simple.  He made these remarks because he knew his history.  He knew that just a couple of decades earlier, Trudeau sought to flood Quebec with new immigrants who he believed would be loyal to his vision of a united, multicultural Canada.  Had he not done this, Quebec may very well have been celebrating its 20th year of independence last year.  But of course, Trudeau wasn't just thinking about Quebec when he liberalized Canada's immigration policies.  He wanted to flood all of Canada with new immigrants whom he believed would become loyal Liberal voters.  I would contend that this is one of the biggest reasons why the Liberal Party is sometimes called Canada's natural governing party, for they have been using immigration as a tool of social engineering to ensure that this country's future generations will be generations of Liberal voters.

The Grits' latest plan to do away with language requirements for newcomers to Canada is just a continuation of their ongoing, cynical use of immigrants as pawns to solidify their power over this country.  Why should they care if new immigrants to this country can't speak English or French well enough to fit in to Canadian society, even after they've become citizens?  After all, one doesn't have to understand too much of either official language to be able vote Liberal come election time.

What If Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders Becomes the Next U.S. President? A Grim Future Awaits the World Either Way

Up until about a year ago, few would have thought that either Donald Trump or Bernie Sanders would have a chance in hell of winning their respective party's presidential nomination.  But now as the primaries have recently begun, the prospect of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders vying for the U.S. presidency in this year's upcoming election has become much more likely.  So I'm now asking myself, what if one of these two men became the President of the United States?

Bernie Sanders: A More Just, But Much Weaker America

Right now, more and more Americans want to "feel the Bern," as the slogan goes.  But why? Probably because he's doing exactly what current U.S. President Barack Obama did when he first ran for president in 2008.  He's giving people hope - hope for a more just America.  There is, however, one significant difference.  Sanders openly describes himself as a "democratic socialist" and promotes policies like universal health care and free post-secondary education.  Who would have ever thought that a person preaching socialism, "democratic" or otherwise, would be a viable candidate for the U.S. presidency?  If Sanders were to be elected president, it would be as significant as when Barack Obama became the first non-white person to ascend to America's highest office.  Whereas Obama broke through the country's still formidable racial barriers, Sanders has the chance to break through America's ideological barriers and become the country's first president elected on a socialist platform.

I don't know if Sanders would be able to push through his entire agenda.  It will inevitably depend on what kind of Congress he has to convince.  Chances are, however, that he will be able to make some significant changes.  But those changes will come with a price tag - a big price tag, which may include the U.S. having to give up its status as the world's sole superpower, thereby leaving itself and its allies extremely vulnerable.  The reason is that policies like universal health care and free college education cost a lot of money.  That money will have to come from somewhere, and I'm betting that much if not most of it will come from what the U.S. now spends on defense.  I predict that should Bernie Sanders win the U.S. Presidency, the American military machine will be massively scaled down.  Bases will be closed, troop numbers will be reduced, funding for new technology and equipment will not materialize and the number of American ships, submarines and planes with significantly decrease.  At the same time, America's rivals, countries like Russia, China and Iran, all ruled by brutal, power-hungry dictators, will increase their military spending and expand their armies, navies and air forces.  Should a major global conflict ensue, such as the Third World War that I have talked about in some of my previous posts, the U.S. will find itself outnumbered and outgunned.  So as a citizen of both Canada and Israel, two countries that would undoubtedly call on the U.S. in a time of global war, you won't blame me if I see the prospect of a Bernie Sanders presidency as extremely unnerving.

Donald Trump: A Fast-Track to World War III

I see World War III as being inevitable, but not for the next decade or two.  Should Donald Trump win the U.S. Presidency, however, it may come a lot sooner.  Call him what you want, a bigot, arrogant, whatever, but the fact of the matter is that he's deadly serious. And his rise to Commander-in-Chief of the biggest military machine in human history may have deadly consequences.  Donald Trump has proven to be a firebrand loose cannon on the campaign trail and I doubt that he would be any different as President of the United States.  I would also describe him as a megalomaniac, very similar to Russia's Vladimir Putin.  It's no wonder then that Trump has said a positive thing or two about the Russian dictator.  But make no mistake, should Trump become president, any semblance of friendship between him and Putin will quickly disappear, for once American and Russian interests conflict with each other, which has been happening a lot lately, the egos of the two power-hungry men will inevitably collide, leading to the outbreak of the Third World War much sooner than I have anticipated.

Alternatives?

As I've already said, I don't think that there's any stopping World War III from happening, but I think the American people will be making a big mistake if they elect either Bernie Sanders or Donald Trump as their next president.  The former will make America much weaker than Obama has already made it, while the latter will push the U.S. into a global conflict before his first term even ends.  The only advice I can give to Americans is to elect someone that won't lead the country on such a radical path that will endanger its security and that of its allies.