Civilization Versus Barbarism

Last week, the prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu stepped to the podium at the United Nations and did the unthinkable for that collection of pimps, thieves, killers and pirates.

He told the truth.

This son of Holocaust victims, schooled in the United States, presides over a tiny spit of a country the size of Delaware. But that did not stop him from calling out the world's bullies who have made the UN a trade association for third world dictators, as I like to say.

In deeply calm voice he called BS on every Castro, Chavez, Khadafi, Arafat, Putin and Ahmadinejad who every sullied the place. Holding a 67-year old blueprint of the Auschwitz-Birkenau death camp, he challenged every Holocaust denier who ever stood at that very podium.

Speaking directly of the Denier-in-Chief, Iran's Ahmadinejad, he spoke with a forceful clarity unknown to the General Assembly:

One-third of all Jews perished in the conflagration. Nearly every Jewish family was affected, including my own. My wife's grandparents, her father’s two sisters and three brothers, and all the aunts, uncles and cousins were all murdered by the Nazis. Is that also a lie?

Yesterday, the man who calls the Holocaust a lie spoke from this podium. To those who refused to come here and to those who left this room in protest, I commend you. You stood up for moral clarity and you brought honor to your countries.

But to those who gave this Holocaust-denier a hearing, I say on behalf of my people, the Jewish people, and decent people everywhere: Have you no shame? Have you no decency?

A mere six decades after the Holocaust, you give legitimacy to a man who denies that the murder of six million Jews took place and pledges to wipe out the Jewish state. What a disgrace! What a mockery of the charter of the United Nations!

Perhaps some of you think that this man and his odious regime threaten only the Jews. You're wrong. History has shown us time and again that what starts with attacks on the Jews eventually ends up engulfing many others.

And then, turning his sights to Islamic fanaticism and terrorism he said:

In the past thirty years, this fanaticism has swept the globe with a murderous violence and cold-blooded impartiality in its choice of victims. It has callously slaughtered Moslems and Christians, Jews and Hindus, and many others.

Though it is comprised of different offshoots, the adherents of this unforgiving creed seek to return humanity to medieval times. Wherever they can, they impose a backward regimented society where women, minorities, gays or anyone not deemed to be a true believer is brutally subjugated.

The struggle against this fanaticism does not pit faith against faith nor civilization against civilization. It pits civilization against barbarism, the 21st century against the 9th century, those who sanctify life against those who glorify death.

The primitivism of the 9th century ought to be no match for the progress of the 21st century. The allure of freedom, the power of technology, the reach of communications should surely win the day.

And the, challenging the UN itself, he questioned:

Will the international community confront a despotism that terrorizes its own people as they bravely stand up for freedom?

Will it take action against the dictators who stole an election in broad daylight and gunned down Iranian protesters who died in the streets choking in their own blood?

Will the international community thwart the world's most pernicious sponsors and practitioners of terrorism?

Above all, will the international community stop the terrorist regime of Iran from developing atomic weapons, thereby endangering the peace of the entire world?

The people of Iran are courageously standing up to this regime. People of goodwill around the world stand with them, as do the thousands who have been protesting outside this hall. Will the United Nations stand by their side?

Ladies and Gentlemen, The jury is still out on the United Nations, and recent signs are not encouraging.

Prime Minister left the General Assembly with this warning:

Over seventy years ago, Winston Churchill lamented what he called the "confirmed unteachability of mankind," the unfortunate habit of civilized societies to sleep until danger nearly overtakes them.

Churchill bemoaned what he called the "want of foresight, the unwillingness to act when action will be simple and effective, the lack of clear thinking, the confusion of counsel until emergency comes, until self-preservation strikes its jarring gong.”

I speak here today in the hope that Churchill's assessment of the "unteachability of mankind" is for once proven wrong. I speak here today in the hope that we can learn from history -- that we can prevent danger in time.

In the spirit of the timeless words spoken to Joshua over 3,000 years ago, let us be strong and of good courage. Let us confront this peril, secure our future and, God willing, forge an enduring peace for generations to come.

The American author John Steinbeck wrote in his epic novel East of Eden "We have only one story. All novels, all poetry, are built on the never-ending contest in ourselves of good and evil." Last week at the UN Benjamin Netanyahu confronted evil in that body and the evil in all of us--the unwillingness to act when action would be simple and effective, as Churchill said.
In doing so he showed a courage, an honesty and a goodness that is rare in diplomacy, and rarer still in the UN.

Just thought you might like to know.

The John Adams Project

Few things shock me anymore, but last night one did. Fox News ran a story on an outfit called the John Adams Project. The John Adams Project is a concoction of the American Civil Liberties Union and a group calling itself the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers. The Project"s goal: to out CIA agents engaged in the war on terror, placing them and their families' lives in mortal peril. Take a look:

div>

The ACLU has a long and spotty record open to public inspection. If you're not familiar with the NACDL one look at their legislative agenda will tell you about all you need to know:

• They continue to press for the right to sue telecom companies whose lines were legally tapped to gain valuable insight into terrorist operations overseas
• They oppose sex offender registration and community notification laws
• They supported the Gang Abatement and Prevention Act of 2007 which sought to replace tough enforcement of anti-gang laws with--you guessed it--throwing more tax dollars at the problem

So it's no surprise that these two far left groups have hooked up. The incoherence of their mission was summed up by Ms. Ginsburg in her impromptu Fox interview:

• She first denies that she was involved in the Project, then speaks intimately of its activities
• She denies the accusation (that they are putting the lives in danger) and instead blames the victims (the agents) saying that it is they who are putting the lives of soldiers in danger
• She denies that their researchers are tracking down these agents, a statement belied by her knowledge of the situation
• She justifies the Project's actions, which may be illegal (disclosing the identities of clandestine agents), on the grounds that the Justice Department won't disclose the details of the enhanced interrogation techniques used in the aftermath of 9-11, even though the actions of the agents have been examined and reexamined over the last 8 years

Perhaps most troubling of all, Ms. Ginsburg says ironically that "people in this country have a right to defend themselves." How about the right of the agents to defend themselves? This group whose mission is defense isn't defending anyone; they are attacking a group of individuals who did their job according to the rules they were given at a time of unparalled crisis in the nation's history. The Adams Project is setting itself up as judge, jury and potentially executioner of these agents. To quote Justice Clarence Thomas, this is nothing but a high-tech lynching.

It's up to Attorney General Eric Holder to investigate whether the John Adams Project is breaking any laws. But the attorney general has already opened up yet another investigation into the enhanced interrogation techniques that took place after 9-11. It's doubtful he'll do anything. If he wanted to act in the interest of fairness, he'd have the special prosecutor look into the John Adams Project while he's looking into enhanced interrogation for the 99th time. But don't hold your breath. 

The most upsetting aspect of this situation is that groups like the John Adams Project feel emboldened enough to take the law into their own hands. This is the political climate we now have in this country. We've become a country of intolerance on the left and on the right. When a group of militant, self-righteous lawyers ginned up by a Messianic fervor can violate someone's rights with impunity we as a country have lost our moral compass.

Just thought you might like to know.