Because It's Important!

It's time to buckle up and get ready for the political ride that is the 2012 Presidential Election! Forget what you hear... it's all spin to benefit the candidates message. Here, I filter through all that and get to the REAL message. All facts... Because It's Important!

[jasonandrewphotography]

San Diego Punk Show, Circa 2002

[becauseitsimportant2012-blog]

Super cool!

[becauseitsimportant2012-blog]

The United States & Israel: Does it Matter in 2012? Part 2 of 2

When I wrote the first part of this two part blog on Israel, it was only the beginning of the madness and violence that erupted in the Middle East.  It has expanded to what feels like every country over there, chanting anti-American slurs and burning the symbol by which we live and die for: the Flag.  It makes our relationship with Israel that much more important.  They have always been our closest ally in the Middle East, but they are having their own problems.  They are on the brink of war themselves with Iran who is close to having a nuclear weapon, and the fighting with the Palestinians over the development of apartment complex's, on land each side claims is theirs.  That is a whole other complicated subject, which I will address... but for now, I am staying on this topic, otherwise this entry will be just as long as the last.  I begin this post by saying that when trying to be equal and even on an issue such as foreign relations, it is not equal when you are comparing a candidate to a sitting President.  For the President, we not only have words, but actions, interactions and policies to confirm or deny the point that is trying to be made.  Concrete evidence, that cannot be disputed. We don't have to only rely on what he says. When looking into Mitt Romney and his relationship with Prime Minister Netanyahu, and his views on Israel, we have his prior relationship, and only words to confirm his views. So in a sense, it is not equal... not even. But in an effort to be fair, I have gathered everything I could find that would give us a glimpse inside how America's relationship with Israel would be under a Romney administration. Presidential Candidate Mitt Romney has openly criticized President Obama's "luke warm" relationship with the Jewish state and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during his campaign.  But this post isn't what Romney has said about Obama... this is about Romney, Netanyahu and Israel.  Or is it?  Is Romney looking to capitalize on his long relationship with P.M. Netanyahu?  And so it begins.

So, when did their relationship begin?  Romney met Netanyahu in 1976 when the two were business school graduates in Boston.  Their relationship is significant, because it pre-dates their entry into politics.  Netanyahu, at the time, was from MIT's Sloan School, and Romney, held a Harvard MBA.  They were both recruited as advisors to The Boston Consulting Group.  They both attended the same Monday morning brainstorming sessions, where the different divisions would present their agendas, and routinely interrogate each other.  The relationship grew stronger during that time, nurtured over meals in Boston, New York and Jerusalem where the two are said to have exchanged advise and insight on topics like politics, economics, and the Middle East.  When Romney became Governor of Massachusetts, Netanyahu often offered him pointers on how to shrink the government.  Romney also took Netanyahu's concern on Iranian business investments to heart.  When Netanyahu wanted to encourage pension funds to divest from business tied to Iran, Romney told him which American officials he should meet with.  This long, and diverse relationship is full of commonalities and has led to a relationship of admiration and mutual respect.  Netanyahu is quoted as saying, "So despite our very different backgrounds, my sense is that we employ similar methods in analyzing problems and coming up with solutions for them." So, will this relationship, dating back to the '70's, cloud their judgment when dealing with the very sensitive issues that have not seen resolution for decades?  Will it hinder the process, or will it help it?  Will it cause the Palestinians to put their "wall" of dissent up because they think that we will not be able to be a true mediator in the negotiating process?  Will there ever be a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Ever? That is certainly to be determined.  If history has a crystal ball to the future, it will be tough.  It always has been.  But there has never been this deep of a relationship between any Israeli Prime Minister and a U.S. President.  So, what are Mitt Romney's views on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict? Again, all we have are words.  We are at a disadvantage because there is nothing he has done, or not done... no situation that has presented itself, or people that he has appointed that would give us an insight as to how he would act, or react when it comes to foreign matters concerning Israel, the Palestinians, or the Middle East.  So I will outline his "said" positions and background. "I believe that the issue of settlements is something which should be discussed in private by the American President and our allies," Romney told Wolf Blitzer on "The Situation Room."  "When we show diplomatic distance between ourselves and our ally, I think we encourage people who oppose that relationship to seek other means to achieve their ends."  Settlement construction has been the most controversial and complicated element of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as I outlined in the first part of this blog.  Romney believes that the current attitude on foreign affairs is only making it easier for the Palestinians to take a bold stance against Israel: "It has emboldened the Palestinians,"Romney said, to CBS News.  "They are convinced that they can do better at the U.N. - and better with America - than they can at the bargaining table with Israel." This is in response to Obama's statements early in his term when he described the continued expansion of Israeli construction on land in East Jerusalem and the West Bank as "illegitimate."  Many consider that land as part of the future Palestinian state. When it comes to what he would do in a Romney administration, he says: "The best thing we can do is to communicate very clearly to the Palestinians as well as to our friends the Israelis, that the route to peace is for them to meet and resolve their differences, rather than to look to us to resolve that difference, or to the U.N. to do it, so I just don't think that my role as a candidate is to begin suggesting what the terms of an agreement might look like." Romney recently visited Israel.  Some look at it as a direct slap in the face to an administration who hasn't gotten far with Israeli-Palestinian matters, and Romney seizing an opportunity to take advantage of his relationship with his "old friend" and current P.M. Netanyahu.  But is it?  Don't good relationships breed better outcomes?  Here are a few quotes from his speech to the Israeli people, in Jerusalem. "Our two nations are separated by nearly five-thousand miles, but for an American abroad, you can't get much closer to the ideals and convictions of my own country than you do in Israel.  We are part of the great fellowships of democracies.  We speak the same language of freedom, and justice, and the right of every person to live in peace.  We serve the same cause, and we provoke the same hatreds in the same enemies of civilizations." "It is my firm conviction that the security of Israel, is in the vital national security of the United States." "Make no mistake.  The Ayatollah's of Iran are resting our moral defenses... they want to know who will object, and who will look the other way.  My message to the people of Israel, and to the leaders of Iran... We will not look away, our country will never look away from the passion and the commitment we have to the people of Israel." "We have a solemn duty and a moral imperative to deny the means to follow through on their [Iran's] malevolent intentions." The last thing I will address is the issue of naming Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.  This is a matter that is hotly contested by many, as our U.S. embassy resides in Tel Aviv.  It has always been a part of both parties platform that Jerusalem is the undisputed capital of Israel.  But this year, there has been some controversy concerning the matter.  It came to light when it was noticed that there was no mention of it in the 2012 Democratic platform.  It angered many Jewish organizations, and drew much criticism from Republicans that President Obama was distancing the United States from its' closest ally in the Middle East.  But it has always been the position of the United States that it is up to final negotiations between the two parties.  According to a March 2012 press conferenceby the State Department: "Our position on Jerusalem has not changed.  The first media note was issued with error without clearances.  We reissued the note with proper clearances that under Kathy Stevens who will be traveling to Jerusalem, with regard to our Jerusalem policy and it's permanent status policy... it's got to be resolved through the negotiation process with both parties." Reporter:"Is it the position of the United States that Jerusalem is the capital of Israel, not withstanding the location of the U.S. embassy?"  "We are not going to prejudge the outcome of those negotiations, including the final status of Jerusalem."  So, if that's the case, then what is the big deal? If our position is that it is up to them, then Romney made a bold statement at the beginning of his speech in Israel: "It's a deeply moving experience to be in Jerusalem, the capital of Israel." After much criticism, it was decided, by the DNC to put the language back in the Democratic platform.  That decision was met with not only criticism, but boo's by the delegates.  A vote was taken, but Chairman Antonio Villaraigosa seemed confused between what the tele-prompter said, and the audible vote on the floor.  A woman told the Chairman to "just read the what it says, they will do what they want."  So what's the official language of both parties platforms? 2012 Democratic Platform: "Jerusalem is and will remain the capital of Israel.  The parties have agreed that Jerusalem is a matter for final status negotiations.  It should remain an undivided city accessible to people of all faiths." 2012 Republican Platform: "We support Israel's right to exist as a Jewish state with secure, defensible borders; and we envision two democratic states-Israel with Jerusalem as it's capital and Palestins-living in peace and security." So, again, I ask.  Is this an issue that will make a difference in this election?  Does it really matter in 2012?  Should we be focusing on what is happening at home, or abroad?  I can say with certainty... what happens here at home affects what happens abroad... and over there, it is a mess.  I can also say that what happens on foreign soil affects our lives here in the states.  Our national security depends on it.  Do you see what is happening right now in over 25 countries?  Are we really doing good by spending billions in aid to countries that are cursing us, and violently protesting us?  That my friend is a good question.  Do we change our position, our nature of aid, and our clout in the world because of a few? I have to say it matters... and I write about it Because It Matters!

[becauseitsimportant2012-blog]

The United States & Israel: Does it Matter in 2012? Part 1 of 2

It seems this election has taken a dramatic turn from domestic issues to foreign matters.  With the recent murder of the U.S. Ambassador in Libya and three other Americans including a U.S. Navy Seal, to the rumored news that Obama snubbed Israeli P.M. Netanyahu... I find it timely to speak of such matters. I begin with Israel... our longest, strongest, and closest ally in the middle east. I do so, because I myself have questioned numerous times if the President has respect for Israel. Why have I questioned it? He hasn't made a trip to Israel his whole term in office... I have heard, and yes, heard, that he has left meetings with Netanyahu spouting questionable statements, the Democrats took the reference to Jerusalem being the capital of Israel out of their platform, and the most recent news that he declined a meeting with Netanyahu to discuss Iran gaining a nuclear bomb, to campaign in Ohio and appear on the David Letterman show.  So what's the deal?  If I listen to the White House, there are no tensions with Netanyahu and Israel, and that it was purely scheduling issues that prevent the meeting.  If I listen to some media outlets, Obama is snubbing Israel because he has never had respect for them and doesn't want to be bothered, other media outlets don't address the matter.  So, I am getting to the bottom of it!  I will talk about Obama and Romney, their history, and their policies when it comes to Israel.  Before I do, I want to address the length of this writing... as I did more and more research, I found it impossible to cut it back. You see, it is not my job to edit for you.. My purpose is to present what I have found so that you can make your own decision, and come to your own conclusions. So this is has become a two-part blog.

 I start with President Obama:

I have to say that I have read through many articles on the relationship of President Obama and Prime Minister Netanyahu, and it doesn't look good.  According to polls commissioned by The Jerusalem Post, the percent of Jewish Israelis, and Jewish Americans who believe that the Obama administration is more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian has been a roller-coaster up and down for the last three and a half years.  After my readings, I came away with a better understanding though, of why the President feels the way he does, but I certainly don't have the space to write it all. I will touch on a little history of Obama's beliefs before he ran for senate, when he was in the senate, statements he has made, and his actions along the way.

The United States and Israel have a deep economic relationship borne out of a 1985 Free Trade Agreement - the first such pact the United States signed.  Since 1985, the U.S. has provided nearly $3B in grants on an annual basis to Israel, with Israel being the largest annual recipient of American aid from 1976 to 2004, and the largest cumulative recipient of aid since WWII.  The United States has always had Israel's back, claiming that Jerusalem, and not Tel Aviv is the capital of Israel.  It is the Israeli - Palestinian conflict, as we all know, that is the sticking point. So, what does Obama believe when it comes to resolving or making progress in that conflict, and how to go about it?

His ties, before he became President, to known anti-Semites: Jeremiah Wright, (Obama's spiritual advisor) Wright has long been a vocal critic of Israel and Zionism, which he has blamed for inflicting “injustice and … racism” on the Palestinian people.  Rashid Khalidi, (co-lecturer at Univ. of Chicago Law School) Characterizing Israel as a “racist” state and “basically an apartheid system in creation, founded the Arab American Action Network which believes that Israels' creation was a catastrophe. In 2001 & 2002, Obama serves on the board of  the Woods Fund of Chicago which made grants totalling $75,000 to the AAAN, Ali Abunimah, (one time VP of the AAAN), Obama spoke at a fundraiser where he was introduced by Abunimah, a good friend, at a pro-Palestinian event raising money for a refugee camp in the West Bank.

President-elect Obama chooses Ingrid Mattson, the leader of a Muslim-Brotherhood affiliated group in the U.S., ISNA (Islamic Society of North America), to recite a prayer during his January 2009 inauguration. The Muslim Brotherhood, which is the ideological forebear of both Hamas and al Qaeda, openly promotes the establishment of a worldwide Islamic caliphate, and is bitterly hostile towards Israel.  He also sent his senior advisor, Valerie Jarrett to be a keynote speaker at an ISNA event later that year.

Candidate Obama appoints Robert Malley, Mideast Director of the International Crisis Group, as his foreign policy advisor in 2007.  Obama was forced to sever ties with Malley after the Times of London revealed that Malley had been secretly in contact with  Hamas leaders as part of his work for the ICG. Malley has written numerous articles and op-eds condemning Israel, exonerating Palestinians, urging the U.S. to disengage from Israel to some degree, and recommending that America reach out to negotiate with its traditional Arab enemies such as Syria, Hezbollah, and Hamas.

His first call to a foreign dignitary was to Palestinian Authority president Mahmoud Abbas.

Appoints Arif Alikhan as assistant secretary for policy development in the Department of Homeland Security. Alikhan believes that Hezbollah is a liberation movement, and regularly participates in MPAC (Muslim Public Affairs Council) fundraisers who has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood.

Appoints Dalia Mogahed, a pro-sharia Muslim as his chief advisor on Islamic affairs.

So, what does this have to do with how President Obama feels about Israel, and does it really affect his decisions when it comes to foreign policy? I mean, he's not the only one making the decisions, right?  There has to be people behind him who advise him on what is best for both countries... he hand selects his advisors, and has an entire administration.  Even though he is the last say, there has to be others that have been working on U.S.-Israeli matters for years before he came to office, right? So let's look at President Obama's commitment to Israel as President.

His first television interview as President was to Al Arabiya where he called for Israel and Palestinians to resume negotiations and said his administration wanted to begin by listening to all parties involved without questioning and prejudging their motives. Here are some quotes from the interview. "We are ready to initiate a new partnership based on mutual respect and mutual interest."  "... all too often the United States starts by dictating -- in the past on some of these issues -- and we don't always know all the factors involved. So let's listen." "Now, Israel is a strong ally of the United States. They will not stop being a strong ally of the United States, and I will continue to believe that Israel's security is paramount."

July 2009: President Obama hosted American Jewish leaders at the White House and told those in attendance that Israel needs "to engage in serious self-reflection."

September 2009: First address to the U.N. General Assembly, the President devoted five paragraphs to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and boasted that under his administration, the U.S. had already joined the United Nations Human Rights Council. The UNHRC had adopted more resolutions and decisions against Israel than against all the other 191 UN member states combined.  In that speech, he rejected the legitimacy of Israeli "settlements" and and he referred to Israel as an "occupier" of Palestinian territory.

March 9, 2010: Obama was reported to be livid over the announcement that Israel would continue to build 1,600 new homes that were already under construction in an Eastern Jerusalem neighborhood during V.P. Joe Biden's visit.  Obama instructed Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to present Netanyahu with a four part ultimatum in which he told her that if Netanyahu did not agree to discuss a partition of Jerusalem and a solution to the Palestinian refugee problem during the negotiations, that he would not meet with him during his upcoming visit to Washington.

March 16 2010: Visit to Israel "postponed."

March 23-24, 2010: Netanyahu and Obama met in the White House with no photographers or press  conference to discuss the Israeli building of apartment complex's in an Eastern Jerusalem neighborhood. Netanyahu was reportedly brought in a side entrance, and apparently left the same way because he did not give written concessions to the four part ultimatum Clinton had delivered to him earlier in the month. Obama suggested that Netanyahu and his staff stay at the White House to discuss the matter so that if he changed his mind, he could inform Obama right away. He was quoted as saying: "I'm still around, let me know if there is anything new." Netanyahu extended his stay for a day, however left without any official statement from either side.

April 2010:  P.M. Netanyahu decided to withdraw from an Obama-sponsored summit on nuclear proliferation when he found out that Turkey & Egypt intended to use the occasion to denounce Israel's nuclear program.  Obama remained silent on the matter.

June 2010:  Obama decided to send an extra $400M in "humanitarian aid" to the Palestinians of the West Bank and Gaza strip. This is on top of the $600M+ in aid that is already sent per year.

July 25, 2010: Obama allows the PLO office in Washington to fly the Palestinian flag and assume the title of "delegation" to spur Palestinians toward peace talks.

May 19, 2011: Obama delivered his "Arab Spring" speech in which he called for a return to the pre-1967 Israeli borders with mutually agreed land swaps. Netanyahu objected.

May 20, 2011: President Obama was heard by many staffers "going off" on staffer Bill Daley in the private area that adjoins the oval office after a "working lunch" with Netanyahu. He is quoted as saying "What the f--k was that?"  That phrase was apparently repeated a number of times in a span of five minutes where the Presidents voice became louder and louder.  He ended the rage by saying, "Never again! Do you understand me? Never again!"  This outrage was in response to P.M. Netanyahu openly chastising the President for his comments regarding the pre-1967 borders in his Arab Spring speech.

November 3, 2011: President Obama and French President Nicolas Sarkozy were caught on mic. Sarkozy told Obama “I cannot stand him [Netanyahu]. He is a liar.” Obama replied: “You’re fed up with him, but I have to deal with him every day!” 

April 28, 2012: Obama waived the Palestinian Accountability Act's freeze on U.S. funding for the Palestinian Authority and provided them $192M. 

July 26, 2012: White House spokesman Jay Carney refused to identify Jerusalem as the undisputed capital of Israel after being questioned by a White House correspondent several times.

September 4, 2012: Several pro-Israel sections of the 2008 Democratic Party platform are removed from the 2012 platform, including any reference to Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, where Palestinian refugees would settle. the reference to Hamas isolating them until it renounces terrorism and recognizes Israel's right to exist.  After fallout, the Democrats were pressured to put back in, language that claims Jerusalem as Israel's undisputed capital.

September 11, 2012: President Obama turns down a request for a meeting with P.M. Netanyahu about the progression of Iran gaining nuclear bomb status.  The administration cites that the Presidents schedule merely doesn't permit such a meeting and that their paths will not cross when they are at the U.N. later this month.  P.M. Netanyahu's office claimed they offered to head to the White House to make it easier on the President, but that it was still declined.  The White House claims that no offer was made.  The Presidents schedule shows him in a highly contested state that week, and according to his campaign website, is scheduled for a fundraiser with Jay-Z and Beyonce, as well as appearing on the Late Show with David Letterman leter that week.  After the apparent snub, P.M. Netanyahu goes after President Obama in an unprecedented verbal attack on the U.S. government over its stance on the Iranian nuclear government stating, "Those in the international community who refuse to put red lines before Iran don't have a moral right to place a red light before Israel," regarding the Presidents lack of a guidance for Israeli action in regards to Iran's acquiring a nuclear weapon.

Mid-East relations are complicated.  They always have been, and they always will be.  We don't live there... we just hear what is going on in the news, and we have to trust that what they are saying is the truth.  What about the other side? What about the opinion or views of those who live there who are relying on the United States to have their back.  Do we?  They wait for us to give them guidance... the go-ahead.  They don't want to act without our support.  Is it a double edged sword that will never swing the right way?  Is there a right way?  That depends on who you talk to.  Will this relationship be forever troubled by the apparent damage that has been done?  Will we ever be rid of America hating extremists who will go to great lengths to try to demean and destroy what we stand for?  Will we ever win a war of ideals and faith?  With what is happening in the Middle East right now after all of our support and aid to mid-east countries like Egypt... I don't know if it ever will.

Part 2: Romney & Israel to come.

[becauseitsimportant2012-blog]

It's time for the REAL truth!

This is my first blog, and it comes because I watch and listen to people going back and forth about the candidates, and their information is not true!  Too many people are being guided by the very politicians that are looking to be elected, who spin the facts to benefit their message.  So, how do you know what is true, and what is not?

You Don't!!!

We have the media, who is obviously biased, and our friends who are being convinced by the media.  Let's face it... we don't have the time to do our own fact checking, and even if we do, where in the world do we go to find out? The internet? I say that and giggle, because you are reading this on the internet, but how do you know that what you are reading isn't from the very biased people you are trying to get away from.  You just have to trust what you read.

So why me? Some of my friends see me as pretty conservative. I am... others see me as liberal... when it comes to some things, yes... but most of all I am a former journalist who got out of the business because of the bias. A little about me:  I grew up in California, a very liberal state. Growing up, I was pretty liberal, but I didn't even know it. When I was able to vote for my first President, I voted enthusiastically for Clinton. I also voted for Bush.  You see, as I have grown older, my views have changed. My life has changed, and I am a proud independent.  I am liberal on social issues, and conservative on constitutional and fiscal issues.  I am a proud independent, and will vote for whoever best suits our country and me at the time.

This Blog: I will address the tough issues.  I will look at what the candidates are saying, and compare it to what they are doing, their voting record, and their history. Who is donating to their campaign and is it influencing their decisions. I will look at what they are saying, and then find out the real facts.  Is it really true? But today, no politics.  I am starting this today, because 11 years ago today there were no Republicans, and no Democrats... there were only Americans. We came together as a nation. 

Somewhere that was lost... and I am tired of the divide. So I write this Because It's Important!

[becauseitsimportant2012-blog]

Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with right or left instead of right or wrong.

Richard Armour