Harris’ ‘Two-State Solution’ Would ‘Wipe Israel Off the Map’
It’s been almost a year since the Hamas terrorist organization attacked Israel on Oct. 7. The massacre left over 1,200 people dead and over 200 kidnapped—including women, men, and children. Since the attack, the Biden administration has made its support for a two-state solution clear. And now, with Vice President Kamala Harris running as the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, it appears nothing has changed.
During Tuesday’s debate between the vice president and the Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, Harris restated her support for a cease-fire and two-state solution, which, as Family Research Council President Tony Perkins explained on Thursday’s episode of “Washington Watch,” would ultimately “transfer the geographical heart of the state of Israel, Judea and Samaria, to the Palestinians.”
Harris declared, “We must chart a course for a two-state solution, and in that solution, there must be security for the Israeli people and Israel and an equal measure for the Palestinians.” But experts on the ground in Israel like Caroline Glick say that a two-state solution is not a viable option.
First, Glick emphasized on “Washington Watch” how Harris’ comments during Tuesday’s debate are likely to “lower her level of support” in Israel. As a senior contributing editor at the Jewish News Syndicate, Glick and her colleagues have been conducting polls “of Israeli sentiments regarding the presidential race.” As she stated, after their most recent update shortly before the presidential debate, “Trump was leading by more than two-thirds of Israelis supporting him over Kamala Harris.” She added, “I assume that next week when we poll that question,” the results will be similar.
Glick further noted that Harris made potentially “the most hostile statement ever made by a major presidential candidate, by a nominee of one of the major parties, regarding Israel in history. … Her hostility toward Israel was stunning.”
Glick explained how the attack on Oct. 7 was the “most sadistic” slaughter Israel has seen, and yet, Harris’ stance seems to reflect that she sees a cease-fire as a way to “pay the Palestinians.” And while it is true that many Palestinian civilians have died over this past year, Glick asserted that this was still “very much an invasion of Palestinian society into Israel, not just Hamas.”
According to Glick, some military estimates found that out of the 10,000 people that entered Israel from Gaza during the attack, 5,000 to 6,000 were Hamas members, and the rest were Palestinian civilians. And so, Perkins noted, when considering the fact that Harris wants a solution that’s in “equal measure for the Palestinians,” it becomes even clearer how the Biden-Harris administration’s “support of Israel has been tepid at best.” Moving forward, he asked, is it possible policies under a potential Harris-Walz administration would be “even more indifferent toward Israel or outright hostile?”
In response, Glick emphasized how, should Harris get elected, America could expect to see more hostility toward Israel. “I think that what Kamala Harris showed at the debate … is that an America under her presidency will not allow Israel to do anything beyond intercepting missiles en route to Israel” and will not allow the Jewish state to take “offensive actions against our enemies, whether it’s Iran or the Palestinians or Hezbollah.”
Glick pointed out how Harris said she “will always support Israel’s right to defend itself,” but that doesn’t change the fact that “the United States right now continues to embargo 2,000-pound bunker buster bombs to Israel, because they don’t want us to take offensive action that will effectively diminish the capacities of our enemies.”
Returning to the topic of the two-state solution, Perkins addressed how the land in question includes a “small strip of the Gaza Strip,” the home of the people attacking Israel. Considering this, he asked, how would Israel be able to defend itself if its land “is given away to a hostile entity?”
“It can’t,” Glick said somberly. “It manifestly cannot do so.” Which is “the problem,” she added, because “people talk about the two-state solution as if this is some sort of responsible policy, but it’s not.” Rather, it establishes “a Palestinian state, causing Israel to renounce our rights to our biblical homeland” and paves the way for “Israel to be defeated.”
Glick concluded, “[G]iving people whose goal in life is to annihilate the Jewish state and the Jewish people … sovereignty over the West Bank of the Jordan of Judea and Samaria” means “giving them the keys to the realm. You are telling them, ‘Go ahead, wipe Israel off the map.’
***************************************************
What doesn’t kill Trump makes him stronger
As if there hadn’t been enough drama in America in 2024, Donald Trump has survived another assassination attempt.
The attempted killing of the 45th president at his golf course in Palm Beach, Florida yesterday afternoon was not nearly as threatening as nine weeks ago in Butler, Pennsylvania. Secret Service, who have faced so much criticism for their failings in Butler, found the would-be killer’s weapon before he was able to target Trump, shots were fired, and the suspect appears to have been arrested fleeing the scene.
What took place in Florida will show voters that a lot of people want Trump dead
It’s still big news. Questions will rightly be asked as to how an armed man was again able to get so close to Trump. At a press conference yesterday, an official said that, had Trump been a sitting president, the entire course would have been secured in advance. Given the recency of the last attempt of Trump’s life, that seems an oversight. Trumpworld is already suggesting it is another conspiracy.
That may be more mad talk – yet the incident could still prove to be a major moment in the presidential campaign, chiefly because it brings to mind the ongoing threat to Trump’s life. And it will remind voters of his narrow escape in Pennsylvania and his extraordinary courage under fire.
After all the drama surrounding Kamala Harris’s elevation to the top of the Democratic ticket, Trump’s ‘fight fight fight!’ response that Saturday evening in July had somehow faded from the public consciousness.
Last week, in the debate in Pennsylvania, Trump said ‘he probably took a bullet to the head’ because of Biden and Harris’s inflammatory rhetoric against him. But the remark was largely ignored. Most commentary focused on his poor debate performance and Trump tirades about rallies and Haitians eating pets in Ohio.
Yet what took place in Florida yesterday will show voters that a lot of people want Trump dead. That will probably boost his appeal among people who don’t. Trump is an extraordinary political candidate, who thrives off enmity, and whatever doesn’t kill him makes him stronger. Sure enough, last night the betting markets improved in Trump’s favour.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2024/09/what-doesnt-kill-trump-makes-him-stronger/
**************************************************‘The Science’ Lights Their Last Bit Of Credibility On Fire For Kamala Harris
Scientific American, a supposedly prestigious science magazine founded in 1845, lit a fire to its last shred of credibility Monday by endorsing Kamala Harris for president.
The journal has only made presidential endorsements twice, the first time being in 2020 when the editorial board backed then-candidate Joe Biden, a very erudite and scientific man with the scholarly sensibilities of a Victorian gentleman. In an equally fawning and delusional endorsement, the editors at Scientific American practically salivate at the idea of a Kamala presidency.
“She pushes policies that boost good jobs nationwide by embracing technology and clean energy,” they write of Harris. “She supports education, public health and reproductive rights. She treats the climate crisis as the emergency it is and seeks to mitigate its catastrophic storms, fires and droughts.” (Click HERE to sign up for John’s weekly newsletter)
The editors also note that as president she would be “relying on science” (read, “left-wing orthodoxy”), “solid evidence” (read, “data and numbers cooked by hacks and government bureaucrats”), and a “willingness to learn from experience” (we’d hope so, but read, “complete lack of self-awareness”).
On Donald Trump, however, the editors argue that he “endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”
Trump “goads people into hate and division, and he inspires extremists at state and local levels to pass laws that disrupt education and make it harder to earn a living,” they write, breathlessly.
I’m not here to debunk every point the editors make in support of Harris, and I’m not here to argue why a Trump presidency would be good for science (who’s sitting in the Oval Office should really have no bearing on whether science flourishes in America). That would take far too long, and far too many Zyns, and I frankly don’t care.
I simply want to point out the utter absurdity that a journal of science, certainly one that seeks to maintain its authority and credibility in a social media world where former credible authorities have been all but destroyed, would ever want to jump into politics in such a crude, pedestrian manner for such an unimpressive and unintelligent candidate.
Dr. Anthony Fauci, former Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, testifies before the House Select Committee on the Coronavirus, Washington, DC, June 3, 2024. Fauci was to many, the public face of government response to the coronavirus and a frequent target of Republican lawmakers’ ire arising from the shutdown.
Aside from virtue signaling and making themselves feel morally superior, what is the upside of Scientific American endorsing a political candidate? No voter cares about what they have to say about politics, and no swing voter in Pennsylvania or North Carolina will read their litany of propaganda and say to themselves, “Well, sheeit, that’s the one. Harris for president.” They are only harming themselves, and for a magazine that was recently dunked on by a former columnist for being too left-wing, this is not the move. (RELATED: Former Columnist Exposes Scientific American’s Sudden Descent Into Left-Wing Ideology)
For a long time, it seems, ‘The Science’ has been turning into a refuge for careerists and hacks, ideologues and do-gooders, bureaucrats such as Tony Fauci or C-list actors such as Bill Nye, all of whom have the combined mental acuity of a braindead cow. Maybe this has always been the case, throughout all of history. Maybe ‘The Science’ was the Catholic Church when Galileo challenged its biblical worldview. Maybe ‘The Science’ hated the fact that Albert Einstein was just a humble patent clerk, a lone wolf working on the periphery of institutions.
I don’t know. What I do know is that, when a history of science in the 21st Century is written, Scientific American will be but a footnote, if that.
https://dailycaller.com/2024/09/17/scientific-american-kamala-harris-endorsement/
*************************************************Also see my other blogs. Main ones below:
http://jonjayray.com/covidwatch.html (COVID WATCH)
http://edwatch.blogspot.com (EDUCATION WATCH)
http://antigreen.blogspot.com (GREENIE WATCH)
http://pcwatch.blogspot.com (POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH)
http://snorphty.blogspot.com (TONGUE-TIED)
https://immigwatch.blogspot.com (IMMIGRATION WATCH)
https://australian-politics.blogspot.com (AUSTRALIAN POLITICS)
https://john-ray.blogspot.com/ (FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC -- revived)
http://jonjayray.com/select.html (SELECT POSTS)
http://jonjayray.com/short/short.html (Subject index to my blog posts)
***********************************************
No comments:
Post a Comment