Connect with us

Foreign Affairs

The anti-Israel spin against moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem has begun



The anti-Israel spin against moving the US Embassy to Jerusalem has begun

There are plenty of cautious, unbiased voices expressing concern over President Trump’s decision to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem. Then, there are hysterical voices outright denouncing the move and making up whatever narrative they can form to build opposition to the move regardless of the truth.

Before we get into the hysterical voices, let’s discuss the truth. I’ve seen lists of 7, 10, 12, and more of really good reasons to not only support but wholeheartedly embrace this move. I’m going to break it down to the three most important:

  1. Israel is a sovereign nation and Jerusalem is its capital. Who are we (or anyone else) to tell them that it’s not?
  2. The most common argument against the move is that it would derail decades of diplomacy we’ve put into Middle East peace. This is a ludicrous argument. This “diplomacy” hasn’t made Israel safer. They’ve essentially stood alone (with technological and equipment aid from the United States) when it comes to defending themselves against the enemies that surround them. All of this “diplomacy” has not brought peace to the Middle East in general and has not prevented ongoing attacks from the very people who would like to have a two-state solution. In reality, they want a one-state solution and no measure of diplomacy will change that.
  3. Once and for all, it’s time to stop talking about the 1967 borders. It’s time to stop saying Israel is occupying any lands unlawfully. Jerusalem is in Israel. There’s no splitting it or giving it to the Palestinians. They are free to worship there, but it’s in the land of Israel. The sooner we and the rest of the world acknowledge this, the sooner we can achieve real peace in the land.

With that out of the way, let’s take a look at those who are against Israel. It’s a pretty mixed group, though most of the publications and authors who oppose the move would be considered left-leaning. Not all liberal disapprove; Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is notably in favor of making Jerusalem the permanent capital of Israel.

Feel free to click through and check out any of these stories. I’m confident if you’re reading this, you won’t be swayed by the subtle jabs or the actual antisemitism veiled within the words of these articles. It’s good to know what the anti-Israel crowd is saying so we can better understand how to defeat their false narratives. This is a small sampling. There are dozens of other major news outlets publishing articles opposing the President’s move. Most use scare tactics; it’s better for their narrative to make people concerned about the repercussions instead of focusing on right or wrong.

Examples of anti-Israel spin stories

Why declaring Jerusalem as Israel’s capital could cause a furor in the Middle East“Any American step related to the recognition of Jerusalem as capital of Israel, or moving the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem, represents a threat to the future of the peace process and is unacceptable for the Palestinians, Arabs and internationally,” Abbas said over the weekend, according to the official Wafa Palestinian news agency.

Jordan’s King Abdullah II said Trump called him Tuesday to say he wanted to move the embassy to Jerusalem, according to a statement by the Jordanian embassy.

Trump’s plan to declare Jerusalem the capital of Israel will derail decades of US diplomacy administration’s planned announcement is already sparking fury across the Arab world. A spokeswoman for Abbas’s office issued a statement early Tuesday warning of “dangerous consequences” if Trump moves forward with plans to eventually move the embassy. King Abdullah was equally critical, saying in a statement that the White House shift on Jerusalem “will undermine the efforts of the American administration to resume the peace process.”

Right-wing Israeli leaders, by contrast, didn’t try to disguise their happiness. In a message to Trump, Naftali Bennett, the head of the Jewish Home party, said he wanted to thank “you from the bottom of my heart for your commitment and intention to officially recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel.”

Risking Backlash, Trump Plans To Recognize Jerusalem As Israel’s Capital : The Two-Way Israel and the Palestinians claim the city is their capital. Israel captured the eastern portion of the city in the 1967 war and U.S. policy — under Republican and Democratic presidents — has long held that the city’s status should be decided in peace talks.

Trump’s announcement, expected Wednesday afternoon, essentially endorses the Israeli position on the city.

Opinion | Does President Trump Want to Negotiate Middle East Peace? Israel’s government has been located in Jerusalem since its founding in 1948, the United States, like the rest of the world, hasn’t recognized the city as Israeli territory, even after the Arab-Israeli War in 1967, when Israel drove back Jordan from East Jerusalem and occupied it. Under the Oslo Accords, Israel promised to negotiate Jerusalem’s future as part of a peace agreement. It has been assumed that under any deal, the city would remain its capital.

Palestinians anticipated being able to locate their capital in East Jerusalem and to have access to Muslim holy sites there. East Jerusalem was exclusively Arab in 1967, but Israel has steadily built settlements there, placing some 200,000 of its citizens among the Arab population and complicating any possible peace agreement.

Why the White House doesn’t think Jerusalem move will kill peace plan hours before President Trump’s highly anticipated speech on Jerusalem, the White House is engaged in damage control. The challenge Trump and his team are facing: how to fulfill his campaign promise of moving the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem and still get a peace deal between Israel and the Palestinians — and prevent a wave a violence across the West Bank and the Middle East.

Between the lines: White House officials think Trump’s decision to follow through on his campaign promise — even if only partially — strengthens his credibility around the world as a someone who stands by his word, isn’t intimidated by threats, and doesn’t cave to international pressure.

Trump decision on Jerusalem could have deep repercussions the campaign trail, Trump took a strongly pro-Israel stance and promised to relocate the U.S. Embassy from Tel Aviv, where most countries keep their embassies, to Jerusalem. Since taking office, he has learned that such a move is easier to talk about than to carry out.

Under American law, the president must sign a waiver every six months that leaves the embassy in Tel Aviv. In June, Trump renewed the waiver, as a string of predecessors has done. This week, another six-month deadline passed without Trump renewing it.

Spotlight: Trump to announce decision on moving embassy to Jerusalem, sparking wide criticism, worries Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini on Tuesday warned that the status of Jerusalem should be resolved through negotiations.

Speaking to reporters following a meeting with visiting U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Mogherini reiterated that EU supports “the resumption of a meaningful peace process towards a two-state,” warning that “any action that would undermine these efforts must absolutely be avoided.”

Trump’s Jerusalem decision has no upside talk about all of this Mideast upheaval, I spoke by phone with Ilan Goldenberg, the director of the Middle East Security Program at the Center for a New American Security. During the course of our conversation, which has been edited and condensed for clarity, we discussed whether Benjamin Netanyahu’s political position was secure, the distinct (but both unsuccessful) ways in which Obama and Trump have approached the Middle East, and just how incompetent this administration really is.

Facts versus spin

By no means am I suggesting there’s no need to report on opposition. News is news and if this world leader or that scholar says it’s a bad idea, we should hear why. The problem I have with these and so many other “news” articles about the move is that they’re littered with the anti-Israel agenda. Sometimes it’s hard to notice. Other times it’s as blatant as an antisemitic neon sign. This is narrative-building. It’s agenda-promoting. It’s more of the same anti-Israel spin that’s grown to be so common in mainstream and leftist media.

Final thoughts

There are so many things to unpack regarding this move, but I’ll wait until everything is on the table. There are some who are saying that the move isn’t really a matter of doing the right thing. It’s the President dangling the carrot so he can broker a two-state solution. It may sound unlikely at this point, but anything’s possible. World events are moving quickly.

If the President does, indeed, sign orders to move the embassy, we should all look closely at the details. Missing the Monday deadline to push the decision down the road is not a sign of rapid movement. It just started the clock. How quickly or intentionally slowly the move is made will give us an idea of how this is all going to play out.

One thing is certain. Unlike past presidents who all (other than Barack Obama) promised to move the embassy during campaign season then avoided the question once they were in office, President Trump has ratcheted up talk about fulfilling the promise he made last year. There’s no backing away at this point, though there’s still a chance he could change his mind once turmoil hits the Middle East more so than it already has.

I truly hope this comes to pass. There will be challenges, not just from the Palestinians and other Middle East nations but also from many here in the United States. We have to do what we can to fight the anti-Israel narrative. Meanwhile, Israel and the United States have to be prepared for an international backlash that could lead to harsh responses.

For better or for worse, it’s shaping up to be Donald Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu versus the whole world. The way it’s handled and the end results will both reverberate across the globe. That’s not in question. What we have to wait to find out is if they’re able to craft their own narrative powerful enough to make it resonate.

Christian, husband, father. EIC, NOQ Report. Co-Founder, the Federalist Party. Just a normal guy who will no longer sit around while the country heads in the wrong direction.

Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Foreign Affairs

Could Trump’s trade war lead to a real war in Korea?



When Donald Trump issued his in-name-only tariffs on steel and aluminum imports, he immediately alienated many of America’s strongest allies due to fears of a new trade war. Unfortunately, as we are seeing in Japan and South Korea, these fears are beginning to materialize.

As the South Korean government works on getting a get-out-of-tariff-jail-free card like Canada and Mexico received before the tariffs even took effect, steel producers in South Korea have decided to halt steel exports to the US, even though we are their third largest customer.

So, how is Trump responding?

In a speech to donors at a fundraiser in Missouri, Trump informed those in attendance that he is prepared to take action against South Korea over what he sees as an unfair trade relationship.

“We have a very big trade deficit with them, and we protect them … We lose money on trade, and we lose money on the military. We have right now 32,000 soldiers between North and South Korea. Let’s see what happens.”

Yep! Trump is threatening to essentially begin dismantling the US Pacific Command (est. Jan. 1941) if South Korea doesn’t cough up his extortion money.

Besides the fact that Trump could be lying about a trade deficit—he admitted to the donors that he lied to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau in their trade discussions—he displayed an incredibly dangerous ignorance with his threat to withdraw US troops.

In remarks before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Adm. Harry Harris, commander of the US Pacific Command, addressed Trump’s threat:

“I believe [regime leader Kim Jong Un] would do a victory dance. I think he’d be a happy man if we abdicated our alliance with South Korea and Japan.”

Trump’s threat is beyond stupid, but it follows a recent announcement that he will be meeting with Kim Jong Un to discuss ways to denuclearize North Korea. Seems to me that the man who brags about being a great dealmaker just surrendered one of his biggest bargaining chips.

What motivation will the North Korean dictator have to disarm if the US abandons the region? Wouldn’t the absence of US troops be an open invitation for Kim Jong Un to invade South Korea? At the very least, it would make an already unstable situation much worse.

Abandoning our allies is familiar territory for The Donald. You may recall that Trump attempted to bully NATO for not paying their “fair share” during his first foreign trip as President less than a year ago.

Legislation has been recently introduced that will return the power to levy tariffs back to Congress. We should hope that it becomes law because not only could it stop a trade war, but in the age of Trump, it could stop a real war in places like Korea.

Originally posted on The Strident Conservative.

David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative. His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.

Follow the Strident Conservative on Twitter and Facebook. Subscribe to receive podcasts of radio commentaries: iTunes | Stitcher | Tune In | RSS

Continue Reading


In Lieu of what is Right – An Interview with Dr. Ken Wright



One of the most vapid and reliably anti-Constitutionalist members of Congress is known to anyone who takes to Twitter, Ted Lieu, of the California 33rd Congressional District, suddenly has a staunch conservative to square off against. I got to sit down for about an hour over the phone with Dr. Ken Wright, who was one of the most interesting interviews I’ve done this year (and after Erin Cruz, Austin Petersen, Shane Hazel, and Hunter Hill, that is saying something).

Dr. Wright is a renowned pediatric ophthalmologist who is invited to teach all over the world. For that reason (sorry doc) I thought he might have the demeanor of a college professor. Analytical without a lot of passion. I was right about the analytical part. I was dead wrong about the lack of passion. This is a man who in no way needs to run for Congress, but instead sees it as a public service that he is willing to take on to make the world better for his family and for all of ours as well. It’s probably worth noting that one of the most respected and freedom-oriented members of the Senate, Dr. Rand Paul, is also an ophthalmologist. I also have an acquaintance here in my home town who is a Constitutionalist and an ophthalmologist. There seems to be a pattern here.

I found Dr. Wright to be authentic, passionate about Constitutional freedoms, and a man who will not be bullied by anyone. He supports much of what President Trump is trying to do, however I have no trouble believing he would stand up to the President should he go off the rails. The people of the California 33rd would do well to put a man of such integrity into office, and with him get rid of one of the most staunchly anti-freedom members of the US House of Representatives, Ted Lieu.

BW: What specific experience and education make you feel makes you the most qualified to be a Congressman?

KW: With the present state of our representatives I think as long as you have a pulse you could do a better job. They’re bought. The special interest lobbyists are running the show. Any good, ethical citizen could do a better job and do what is right for the people.

**I needed to take a moment to stop laughing at this answer. It was funny because it’s true.**

I’m a pediatric ophthalmologist. I know people all over the world since I travel for teaching in my field. I was awarded a service medal from the President of Panama after Noriega was ousted due to the work I was doing there. I’m a doctor, and doctors use data and facts to make decisions. We don’t put a Band-Aid on an infection and expect it to go away. Dems in inner cities have made people dependent for more than 50 years with no way out and they end up in gangs or living on welfare. Let’s get factories into the inner-cities. Let’s get them jobs instead of food stamps and a few bucks. I want to actually solve problems instead of creating a never-ending cycle of dependency.

BW: What specific issues will be your main focus if elected?

KW: Immigration is a huge problem right now. President Trump gave Congress the job to put together a real plan for DACA and they’ve done nothing. We need a clear policy regarding immigration. To my mind we need to secure the border. Without that we have open borders. We need a wall for at least part of the southern border. It worked in Israel. Then you can think about what to do with 13 million illegals.

Whether they were invited by the government or not, many illegals came here because we wanted people to come here; we wanted them to do certain jobs like pick crops or be a housekeeper, and it would be wrong to send them all home after so many years. That said, criminals with so much as a DUI have to go. This is my problem with sanctuary cities; they allow criminal illegals to roam free and harm our citizens. This is not a Democrat or Republican problem, but rather an American problem.

The largely law abiding that we choose to let stay can get in line behind everyone else and perhaps pay some fines and do some service, but they shouldn’t be able to get to the head of the line like so many Democrats want, and they certainly shouldn’t be given blanket amnesty.

Healthcare is a big issue, mostly because the Democrats have made it that way with Obamacare. Despite what the Democrats say, there were never bodies lying in the street before Obamacare. No one is turned away from any emergency room. Everyone can get care. Not everyone needs health insurance. If you’re a 20 year old on your first job and in good health, perhaps you don’t need to spend money on health insurance, and it’s wrong for the government to force you to subsidize health insurance for others. We need to repeal McCarron-Ferguson Act which exempts insurance companies from most federal regulation including anti-trust laws. That would allow real free-market competition back.

BW: What failures do you feel have been made on the part of Ted Lieu?

**Note: I asked Dr. Wright to please try to keep this to a top 5 list… I know I could write an article just on this question**

KW: When the Syrian war was really going on he wanted to bring 200K refugees from Iraq and Syria and voted against the SAFE Act. That’s dangerous for America.

He doesn’t protect America first. He wants open borders. He’s for sanctuary cities. He votes against Kate’s Law every time it comes up. He has sponsored legislation for no-money bail, saying bail is unfair to the poor, yet judges can take that into consideration. He wants to take the discretion away from the judges.

He’s a hypocrite. On his web site the number one issue he talks about is climate change. And yet, when he was a state senator he accepted $13K from real estate developers who wanted to build a new stadium, and then he co-sponsors a bill to exempt the real estate developers from environmental regulations. He’s a career politician and has never had a real job in his life. I’ve had a real job. I’ve run a business and put people to work.

BW:  What political challenges do you face and how do you plan to overcome them?

Well, District 33 is only 24% Republicans, which has discouraged the GOP and the GOP wasn’t even going to run someone in 2016. However, there’s almost 30% here with no party preference. I was able to take 37% in 2016 and I didn’t have a real organization. I have a whole organization this time and I think winning this district is doable.

BW: With the current debate over gun-control, what are your thoughts?

KW: Well this isn’t an easy issue. I think we all, or at least most, agree a civilian doesn’t need to own a surface-to-air missile. At the same time, the 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting, it’s about being able to resist a tyrannical government. We need to find a balance. I think for certain weapons perhaps some form of mental evaluation might be in order. The problem is the Democrats always want to take it too far. Instead of making things simple and wanting to implement legislation that might actually save lives they are intent on disarming the population.

BW: There has been a lot of debate over President Trump’s tariffs. How do you feel about them.

KW: Great question. Would you agree that it is equally wrong for one to hire someone to commit murder as it is to commit murder yourself?

BW: Sure.

KW: Well by the same token, if it’s wrong for us to use slave labor to make our products, it’s equally wrong for us to allow China and other countries to use slave labor without any kind of penalty. The Chinese have a miles long factory where people were crammed into tiny rooms to live and work. It was so miserable that people were jumping to their deaths. Know what the Chinese government did? They put up nets outside the building so that people couldn’t even kill themselves to get away. It’s that miserable and yet we are profiting from it in the form of cheaper goods. You’ll notice that the President isn’t imposing these tariffs on Europe or Canada or other nations that play by the rule of civilized behavior.

BW: I’m personally very much against tariffs, but I have to admit that I never thought about it that way.

KW: Most people don’t.

BW: I ask this of all California candidates since your state pretty much has been the leader on this issue: What about legalization of Marijuana?

The half-life of marijuana is 3-4 days. If you smoke 2 or 3 times a week then the half life becomes about 2-3 weeks. Alcohol is metabolized much faster. I think it should be available but through a pharmacy, and not in smoking form. Physicians were encouraged to give more opioids for pain management and they found it to be profitable. This has led toward a lax attitude toward drugs. Marijuana should be available to those who need it, but we can’t be so careless with how it’s used.

BW: What do you want the people of the California 33rd to know about you?

KW: Both Republicans and Democrats need to realize that we are Americans first. Vote for someone who has the moral fiber to do what is right. Don’t vote for someone just because they might be at your end of the ideological spectrum.

You can learn more about Dr. Ken Wright by clicking here.


Continue Reading


Free but Fair Trade – Is it Possible?



Free but fair trade is an expression which we often hear today from President Trump; just as we hear that millionaires and billionaires must pay their fair share from Senator Sanders. When asked what percentage is fair; since these millionaire and billionaires are in the highest tax bracket and pay the most in taxes, we never seem to get an answer. All we hear is from the progressive left that they have too much and need to pay more.

Similarly, the expression free but fair trade sounds great, but the meaning of “fair” is utterly void of any substantive meaning. The idea of a 25% tariff may be fair, but it is by no means free. So the question is, how can we obtain free but fair trade?

The Reality

Before we can answer this question, we must first examine the deficiencies in our current trade policies. The first thing we must realize is that we do not currently have free trade. Think about it like this. If we did have free trade why would we need complex trade agreements? The fact is we have thousands of tariffs in the United States. Just like every other country, we seek to protect some industries over others.

Some are for supposed national security reasons, and others are simply to protect an industry in a member of Congress’ district.

The second and most significant reason we do not have free trade is that true free trade is optimal but not politically expedient. For instance, let us use China and the United States as examples and let us say we currently do not trade with each other.

Establishing trade with one another is beneficial for both countries regardless of tariffs. Since trade never existed, an unfavorable trade agreement is preferable over no trade at all. Reasons being both countries will benefit from trade. Industries may open, and some may close, but there will be a net positive for both countries. It is a mutually beneficial arrangement.

Now instead of unfavorable trade agreements, what if we had free trade. All products coming from China into the United States and vice versa are tax-free. In this situation, you will see the greatest mutually benefit as both countries will have positive net growth. If this situation exists for years, you will see a fluid economy as some industries will be created, grow, decline, or shut down.

The problem that arises is not the creating and growth of some industries but the decline or elimination portion.

If a software engineering firm which sells most of its software to China opens up in a congressional district, you will be sure to see that member of Congress at the ribbon cutting ceremony will a plethora of other politicians stating their policies fostered the creating of this software engineering firm.

On the other hand, you won’t see these same politicians at the factory down the street which is packing up and moving to China. The same policies that opened up the software engineering firm eliminated your manufacturing job. What is an elected official to do?

What they will try and do is give tax incentives and add tariffs to prevent the closure. If they succeed, they will once again take credit; even though the biggest net benefit to the economy as a whole is to allow the factory to shut down, though it isn’t politically expedient.

Back in China, they will also try and protect their software engineering firms by adding tariffs and regulations on the US-based company. The result of all this will be less than optimal, but a long-term net benefit is not politically expedient. So protectionism will inevitably begin.

Possible Solution?

Therefore, how do we create complete free and fair trade? The honest answer is you can’t; as we have demonstrated allowing complete laissez-faire trade policy will never occur because it isn’t politically expedient. Some may be for good reasons and some for bad reasons.

To achieve the most optimal outcome would be to eliminate tariffs. But how do you do that without cheating and allowing politically expedient policies?

Maybe this example trade policy below might help in this endeavor.

All products, goods, materials, and services, entering the United States and its territories shall be free of tariffs. Any fees, including but not limited to docking, storage, and inspection imposed at points of entry shall be uniform at each location regardless of country of origin. Likewise, all products, goods, materials, and services produced in the United States and its territories shall be free of tariffs. Any country that imposes a tax on any of said products shall immediately, have the highest equivalent tax impose on all their goods and services at the same rate plus 10%; until eliminated.

Likewise, any fees should not favor any other country over the United States and its territories. Fees must be uniform or to the benefit of the United States. If fees are to the disadvantage of the United States, those same rates shall be immediately imposed on said country plus 10% until eliminated.

How it works

I postulate this trade policy would allow greater free trade then we have ever seen.

For instance, if China has a combined 20% tariff on mid-sized trucks and 25% on sedans, then since 25% is the highest tax imposed on US products then 100% of all items coming into the United States from China will have a tariff of 27.5% immediately imposed on it. This scheme would also apply to any value added tax or border adjustment tax which would disadvantage the United States over other foreign or domestic products. Therefore, I believe the consequence would be so devastating to China they wouldn’t dare put a tax on American products, and likewise, the United States would not want to engage in a trade war just to protect one industry or factory.

Let us say that we just succeeded in creating Free Trade the vague notion of Fair Trade can never be quantified or defined.

For instance, if China is subsidizing its steel industry and shipping Chinese steel into the United States cheaper than the free market can produce it, is that still Fair Trade?

Is it Fair?

It’s still Free Trade because no taxes or tariffs are imposed but is it fair?

Some would argue that it is not fair for China to subsidize their steel industry because that puts the US steel industry at a disadvantage. The US could impose a tariff but as stated that would eliminate free trade. The only other option would be for the United States to subsidize the US steel industry or let it possibly collapse. Sidenote, we only receive 2% of our steel from China, and U.S. Steel production makes up 70% of the steel used in the United States.

Some might see this as unfair; others see this as a plus benefit to the United States.

American economist and Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences recipient Milton Friedman viewed this as reverse foreign aid. If China wants to tax their citizens to provide US citizens and companies with subsidized steel why not let them. In a Milton Friedman perspective, this might seem unfair to Chinese taxpayers and more than fair to US taxpayers.

Some may argue that US steel production is vital to US national security. Having enough steel is crucial to our national security, but that doesn’t mean that we can’t stockpile Chinese steel. Also, it neglects the fact that other countries like South Korea protect their steel industry by subsidizing steel in their country to prevent monopolization by Chinese firms. The US can also buy from South Korea or even Canada.

Countries may also put strict regulations on how steel is produced in their countries as well as impose those rules on foreign producers. These policies may not have a defined numerical value as a tariff but in a sense act as a protectionist trade barrier. Since there is no quantitative value to these types of regulations, having US laws automatically trigger countermeasures would be impossible.

So can we truly have Free but Fair Trade? As we have seen having Free Trade is possible, but Fair Trade is really in the eye of the beholder. Ultimately, the best interest of the United States and its continued success is by having a free trade policy, maybe something like I have spelled out in this article, as well as, limiting regulations and limiting government interference in the economy.

Nothing can be put in place to be completely fair and balanced, but the most reasonable thing to do for the overall benefit of America and Americans is to maximize laissez-faire economic policies void of politically expedient measures.

Konstantinos Roditis is a candidate for California State Controller. You can learn more about his campaign at, and you can follow him on Twitter & Facebook.

Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.