|
|
|
Jewish World Review January 28, 2009 / 3 Shevat 5769 LEGACY: Condoleezza Rice to Ascendant Islam: Yes, Master! By Julia Gorin
http://www.JewishWorldReview.com |
I remember how excited I was in 2000 over the prospect of a Condoleezza Rice. No one was talking about her yet, but she made quite an impression at the Republican Convention that year, and my college mentor, who came over with his wife to watch the convention, had read all about her before the public even knew her name. He could barely contain himself when she stepped onto the convention stage.
Two years later I would write an article contrasting this student of the late international relations professor and former Czech diplomat Josef Korbel with Korbel's defective spawn, Rice's predecessor and self-credited "path beater" Madeleine Albright. For it was Rice, and not his unexceptional daughter, who changed his mind about women not being suited for foreign policy.
But to look at the work of Clinton's female secretary of state, Bush's female secretary of state, and Obama's female secretary of state, all three have proven him right.
From the time she became secretary of state, Rice—not unlike her boss--bent over backwards to please the Muslim world. The nadir of this policy was in November 2007, when she presided over a conference in Annapolis between Israel and several Arab/Muslim states. As Caroline Glick reported in JWR, because the Saudi delegation wouldn't walk through an "unclean" entranceway, the Jews were asked to enter through the pantry. Nor was there any hand-shaking with Jews by the Saudis, and the Saudi representative, according to Pamela Geller in her piece "US: State Sponsor of Judeophobia," removed his translation ear piece during Olmert's greeting and speech about peace, then made sure his hands didn't touch when he clapped during the applause after the speech.
To show understanding of both sides, Rice reached far, bringing up her childhood in the segregated South. As Accuracy in Media's Joel Himelfarb put it last March, "For the past year and a half, Rice has repeatedly undermined the administration's credibility by making statements suggesting that Israeli security checkpoints set up to prevent terrorists from entering Israel and blowing themselves up are somehow analogous to the mistreatment of Southern blacks under the Jim Crow laws."
She also got into the habit of referring to Hamas as a "resistance movement," and parroting the combatant's language by citing the "daily humiliation of the occupation." This past October, Hamas revealed that Rice had praised it in a diplomatic message thanking the terror group for "its efforts in maintaining a cease fire in the Gaza Strip"—over which even Olmert's Israel found its feet enough to ask for a clarification. With this, Rice has followed in the footsteps of the man who freaked her out of the Democratic party when she was 25-- Jimmy Carter, who in April "met with Hamas' most senior leadership in the West Bank, Gaza Strip and in Syria in a move widely seen as breaking the dam of Hamas' isolation."
Last May she pushed Israel to remove ever more West Bank roadblocks while Palestinian security forces were failing to engage in counterterrorist operations in the West Bank. She said then that the most important aspect of talks would be to assess "where we are in terms of...the improvement of life for the Palestinian people." At the time, Israeli military authorities told DEBKAfile that "the removal of the permanent roadblock at Asariya a-Shemaliya north of the West Bank town of Nablus lays the entire area including central Israel open to terrorist attacks which that very roadblock had long been a key element in frustrating." Indeed, it was the removal of one of these roadblocks that allowed three Palestinian policemen to gain access to a road on which they gunned down 29-year-old father Ido Zoldan.
The Bush administration's departing word on the region came on January 8, when it did not veto a UN resolution that called for a ceasefire while Israel was still under fire, and made no mention of Israel's right to self-defense or even of the word "Hamas," as the Hudson Institute's Anne Bayefsky wrote in her article "Shame on Bush and Condi": "Arab states could scarcely contain their glee. The U.K. went out in front and accepted the idea of a much stronger resolution ... and Secretary of State Rice rolled over and played dead within minutes ... When it was over, Secretary of State Rice 'abstained' with the following words: 'this resolution, the text of which we support, the goals of which we support, and the objectives that we fully support, should indeed be allowed to go forward.' These words led other ambassadors to point out that the resolution had, in effect, been adopted by consensus."
Some, including former Israeli diplomat Yoram Ettinger, have described Rice as having a personal mission or aspiration to establish a Palestinian state. In other words, although Jews helped liberate black people and fought for them down to the last civil right, this shining product of that black-Jewish struggle is on board with the agenda of the Muslims—who still enslave blacks.
In addition to becoming the first U.S. secretary of state to visit Libya since 1953 just as Libya, emboldened by the jihad, is becoming ornery again, Rice last March met with ambassadors from the Saudi Arabia-based OIC (Organization of the Islamic Conference), an organization of 57 mostly unfree states, which has been pressuring the UN to create anti-free-speech laws that would outlaw criticism of Islam and citing the 1990 Cairo Declaration that states all human rights are subjected to sharia law. At the meeting, Rice offered the following whopper:
Slavs? Why, those are borderline aliens. Saudi Arabia? Now that's mishpucha! (Yiddish for "family".) What could account for claiming common values in a permanent enemy and strategic threat that has opposite values and interests, while disavowing any common values in what had become a past threat and tried to become a strategic partner?
The answer can be found in the Balkans, to which Condoleezza Rice's servility to Master extends. Though she is not unique on the pro-terrorist-run-Kosovo front, her personal pattern has been consistent in the Balkans where, like the previous administration, she took the Masters' side against her co-worshipers of the religion that enabled the abolition of slavery--the Serbs. Despite the mostly Muslim Albanians being the undisputed kings of Europe's sex-slave trade, and despite the Serbs historically (and very recently) shedding rivers of their blood to stave off Islamic expansion ("Better the grave than a slave" goes their mantra), Rice is on the anti-Serb, pro-Albanian bandwagon that is seeing 15 percent of Serbian land, extracted through al Qaeda-sponsored terror in conjunction with U.S.-led NATO, gifted to Master. Consider the added irony that the Serbs are Slavs, from whom the word "slave" is derived in the first place.
The desperation and subservience in this twisted logic and inverted history aside, it is interesting to note that for the purposes of Rice's protegees, the Albanians—whose sponsors before us were the Ottomans, then Hitler, then the Soviets—little distinction is made between us and Rice's despised Russians: whoever the heavy is that's supporting Albanian ambitions, that's who gets Albanian loyalty. And indeed, from where they're sitting and watching what the U.S. is wreaking on the international order in their behalf, it's understandable that they wouldn't make much of a distinction. (While Rice's pro-Western Russian fans—anti-Putin opposition leaders and editors with whom we apparently share no human values—warned her of the consequences of allowing a unilateral declaration of independence.)
In her written statement recognizing Kosovo's unilateral independence, Rice congratulated "the people of Kosovo on this historic occasion" and pledged that the U.S. would "continue to be its close friend and partner." She then regurgitated propaganda about NATO having prevented ethnic cleansing of Albanians; about the gang-run, almost mono-ethnic, supremacist Kosovo having built "democratic institutions" and a "multi-ethnic" society; and about Kosovo being a "special case," with the usual added instruction that it's "not to be seen as a precedent for any other situation in the world." She repeated that independence is "the only viable option to promote stability in the region," one of several code phrases for the fact that Albanians regularly promise violence and turmoil in the region in the event they get anything short of a fully independent second state.
A few days later, Rice said it was time for the Serbs to "drop centuries of grievance and sentimentality...We believe that the resolution of Kosovo's status will really, finally, let the Balkans begin to put its terrible history behind it. I mean, after all, we're talking about something from 1389--1389! It's time to move forward."
Apparently not noticing that we're really only embarking on the 7th century--making the comparatively civilized 1389 seem like an advanced society—Rice's comment drew the following response from Balkan and Islamic scholar Srdja Trifkovic:
One pats the other on the back for killing Slavs on behalf of Muslims, and the other pats the one on the back for burying them. If Albright indeed beat a path for Rice, it's that she was as big a traitor to the classic untermenschen, the Jews and Serbs, as Rice turned out to be. (Albright's pressuring of Israel aside, there are two big things she hid from public view: that she was born Jewish, and that her Jewish-Czech family were saved by Serbs—twice.)
Like many of Rice's critics, both black and white, who by virtue of Rice's Republicanism regarded her less as a black female than a white male, I never viewed Rice in color. But for her final year in office, she decided to be black.
Domestically, she announced that the U.S. needs more black diplomats. While that may be true, Republicans don't generally think in color, which is incidental to fair-mindedness and merit. Only Democrats and groups think in color, but this supposed Republican told a September conference of leaders of black colleges, "I want to see a Foreign Service that looks as if black Americans are part of this great country. I have lamented that I can go...into a whole day of meetings at the Department of State and rarely see somebody who looks like me...[A more diverse diplomatic corps is essential] if America is going to stand for the belief that multi-ethnic democracies can work."
In April Rice said that America suffers from a national "birth defect" (slavery)—an egregious term for any secretary of state to use about "a nation that has brought more liberty to more races, colors and creeds than any in history," as Diana West wrote. West also notes "something shockingly provincial" in Rice's Birmingham-Gaza analogies.
Yet the turn toward this provincial mindset is new for Rice; it's doubtful that she actually sees things through this prism—she was always too intelligent for that. But she is somehow using it, apparently bent on ingratiating herself to a mob mentality both domestically and internationally as she gauges the power shift toward the modern-day slave masters and traders, the Muslims. As a result, she forsakes the society that eradicated slavery from the civilized world—Western Christian society—like so many other blacks are doing. And all in favor of the East and Islam, which still practice slavery. Many blacks are even converting to the Master's religion, which enshrines slavery. Rather than defending her country on its final slavery legacy and condemning societies that still practice it, she looks for cheap parallels and reduces herself to the most simple of group thinkers who rail against American slavery from 150 years ago instead of against 1500 years of Muslim-run slavery that is still thriving.
Like so many others, Rice has adopted a slavish devotion to the politics of color, something that plays into the hands of Islam. She is a pragmatist in the end, not a leader of character, interested more in surviving the rule of the ascendant new masters of the universe—so that they either reward her, leave her alone, or kill her last. It's a selfish endeavor, given that the woman has no children to protect or for whom to stay alive. Why is she so scared of Master's wrath, when her administration has sent young men and women one-third her age, who have barely tasted life, to sacrifice themselves for freedoms that the government she was part of surrenders on our very shores, thereby betraying their sacrifice?
Rice is in her mid 50s. She has been a ballerina, an ice skater, a classical pianist, an academic, an Ivy League provost, a Soviet expert, a football expert, a defense secretary, a glass ceiling breaker, and a secretary of state. What more is there to accomplish, what ambition left unfulfilled, that she is unwilling to take any political risk while desperately betraying history at every turn? Be on "Dancing with the Stars"?
Instead of taking risks in exchange for our young soldiers' risks, instead of making sacrifices for their sacrifices, our middle-aged leaders sacrifice the young's ultimate sacrifice--by not standing up to the influence of political Islam on our own shores. In Rice's case, not only does she not stand up to it, she is on board with it. And here Rice reveals her final, unfulfilled aspiration: to be Muhammad's little slave girl.
Every weekday JewishWorldReview.com publishes what many in the media and Washington consider "must-reading". Sign up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.
JWR contributor Julia Gorin is a widely published op-ed writer and comedian who blogs at www.JuliaGorin.com She's the author of the just-published "Clintonisms: The Amusing, Confusing, and Even Suspect Musing, of Billary". Comment by clicking here.
© 2008, Julia Gorin. |
Arnold Ahlert | |||||||||||
