It's Now or Never on Climate

Two major weather events took place on opposite sides of the world this past week.

In Texas, torrential downpours dropped more than 11 inches of rain in just 6 hours, causing apocalyptic-type flooding not seen in more than 500 years.

The images from Houston and other surrounding areas are terrifying. Once sleepy streams have turned into raging rivers, washing away roads, bridges and anything else in their path. Cars and trucks float where streets once stood. Now they are stranded like relics of a bygone era, replaced by kayaks and canoes.

Thousands of homes have been damaged or destroyed. More than 20 people have been killed, with many more missing or unaccounted for. Volunteer emergency crews have been working around the clock to save people trapped in their homes.

In Wimberly, the Blanco River produced a 44-foot high surge, shattering the previous record of 32 feet, which was set in 1926. One official said the river rose 12-14 feet in just 30 minutes and grew 223 cubic feet per second, the fastest rate ever recorded.

Meanwhile, in India another extreme weather event is wreaking even more havoc. But it isn't a flood. It's a heat wave.

So far, more than 1,400 people have been killed in less than one week, mostly due to dehydration and heat stroke. The majority of the deaths came from "people who don't have access to air conditioning," namely construction workers, the poor/homeless and the elderly.

In Delhi it reached 113 degrees. In other areas, temperatures hit 122 degrees, just 1 degree shy of the all-time record. It's gotten so bad that people are being ordered to stay in their homes and not go outside. It's so hot that roads are literally melting.

While the historic flooding in Texas and the deadly heat wave in India are completely different forms of extreme weather, they are both products of the same root cause: climate change.


REDEFINING CLIMATE CHANGE

For years, climate change was framed through the lens of polar bears and rising sea levels. But now, thanks to an explosion of mega-storms, floods, droughts and blizzards, we are realizing that melting ice caps are only one part of the overall climate crisis.

The other part is extreme weather.

Hurricane Sandy was the wake up call, a seminal moment when humanity's eyes were opened to the undeniable fact that we had entered a new climate reality, one where old, predictable weather patterns were replaced by bigger, stronger, more violent weather events than ever before.

Since Sandy, it's only gotten worse. We've had record snowfall in the Northeast and an unprecedented drought in California. Now we have a 500-year flood in Texas and a sweltering heat wave in India.

The rise in extreme weather coincides with the fact that the planet continues to warm and carbon emissions continue to rise. (It may have gone largely under the radar, but the Earth reached a "global milestone" in March when CO2 emissions reached 400 ppm for the first time in recorded history).

As a result, any conversation about combating extreme weather must start with combating climate change. The two are intertwined.


SEARCHING FOR SOLUTIONS

Solars panels, wind turbines and electric cars are a step in the right direction but they're not enough. If we want to prevent environmental doomsday, we must keep the remaining carbon in the ground and completely reinvent the way we live our lives.

This means no more drilling. No more pipelines. No more flying on planes (air travel leaves a huge carbon footprint). No more steaks and cheeseburgers (the meat industry is one of the biggest producers of greenhouse gasses).

If the recent events in Texas and India teach us anything, it's that climate change can no longer be denied or ignored. It can't be wished away. It's happening right now, before our eyes.

We can either sit back and do nothing, accepting the fact that rising seas and extreme weather are the new normal, or we can make serious, bold changes to limit our emissions, cool the planet and prevent climate judgment day.

Years ago, conventional wisdom was that climate change and global warming are a slow moving disaster that won't affect us during our lifetimes, but could affect our grandchildren or great-grandchildren. But that's not the case anymore. It's here now. It's affecting us as we speak.

It's now or never on climate.

Osama Bin Laden, Seymour Hersh And The Truth About The Abbottabad Raid

I'll never forget the day Osama Bin Laden was killed.

It was May 1, 2011. Coincidentally, it was also my 24th birthday.

I remember sitting on the train, heading back to my Allston apartment after a long night of working in a restaurant by Fenway Park. I was listening to my iPod, as I always did, when rumors began to swirl online that President Obama was set to make a major announcement to the nation.

I got off at my customary stop- Harvard Ave- and raced back to my apartment, not sure what to expect.

Another war? A terrorist attack? A plane crash? An airborne toxic event? Aliens?

My friends, roommates and I gathered around the television, a big Sony flat screen that was usually reserved for sports and movies. Then, right on cue, Barack Obama made the long walk toward the camera and said "The United States has conducted an operation that has killed Osama Bin Laden."

For a few seconds, the room was silent. Everyone was shocked, their jaws hanging from their faces, their eyes staring blankly at the television screen as if to say, is this really happening?

A moment or so later, we all erupted in applause. But it wasn't just us. The entire city exploded at the exact same time, as if the Red Sox had just won the World Series. Soon, the streets of Boston were flooded with people holding American flags and climbing light posts. Everyone was hugging each other. People were singing "God Bless America" at the top of their lungs.

We got him! It's finally over! 

I had never experienced such a powerful, collective sense of patriotism in my life. It wasn't like singing the national anthem in unison at a crowded sporting event. Or watching fireworks amidst a sea of red, white and blue American flags on the 4th of July.

It was different in a way I can't fully describe. I'd like to think it felt something like V-Day in Times Square, 1945, when the US had just defeated Japan in WWII.

I felt more American in that moment than I ever had in my entire life.


WHAT REALLY HAPPENED

Some four years later, the legend of the Abbottabad raid and the killing of Osama Bin Laden has become almost a mythical tale.

Popularized by the movie Zero Dark Thirty, the story goes something like this...

After years and years of tireless intelligence gathering (combined with information secured by torture), the CIA was able to track down Bin Laden's courier, who led them to his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan.

However, despite the information from the courier, it still wasn't 100% certain that it really was Bin Laden. And if it was him, doubts existed that he would actually be there. Nevertheless, President Obama made the gutsy call to go through with the mission.

After flying in on a set of helicopters, SEAL Team 6 evaded detection from the Pakistani military, broke into Bin Laden's Abbottabad complex, and, after an exchange of gunfire, shot and killed the most wanted man on the planet. Bin Laden's body was then flown to the USS Carl Vinson and buried at sea.

But according to a recent bombshell report by Seymour Hersh, much of the story is a lie.

According to Hersh, Bin Laden wasn't hiding out in the Abbottabad complex, he was being held prisoner there by the ISI, the Pakistani version of the CIA, and had been for years, possibly since 2006. Bin Laden was under house arrest, unable to leave the premises. He was being monitored and surveilled 24/7.

And it wasn't a courier who led the US to Bin Laden, instead it was a former senior Pakistani intelligence officer. According to Hersh, he walked into the US Embassy in Islamabad in 2010 and told the US where Bin Laden was.

"He betrayed the secret in return for much of the $25 million reward offered by the US... The informant and his family were smuggled out of Pakistan and relocated in the Washington area. He is now a consultant to the CIA."

So the "gutsy" decision by Obama wasn't really gutsy at all. Bin Laden was a sitting duck. He was handed to the US on a silver platter. It wasn't a result of years of intensive work, it was a stroke of luck. If not for the informant, who knows if Bin Laden isn't still alive today, safely hidden in that same Abbottabad complex.

Also, according to Hersh, there was no firefight. Bin Laden didn't have a suicide vest. He didn't even have an AK-47, as previously reported. He was an "old, sick man, who was going to be murdered."

THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE

Since Hersh's report surfaced, a major debate has erupted over what really happened in the Abbottabad raid.

White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the story was "riddled with inaccuracies and outright falsehoods." Others have attacked Hersh's character, calling his journalistic integrity into question.

However, despite the blowback, Hersh is sticking to his story.

In the end, we are left with the ultimate postmodern conundrum. There is no black and white, only gray. We must come to our own conclusions about the Abbottabad raid.

If you ask me, I tend to believe Hersh over the Obama Administration.

Hersh has won a Pulitzer. He has been a well-known, well-respected investigative reporter for 50 years. He exposed the My Lai Massacre during the Vietnam War. He sounded the alarm on abuse at Abu Ghraib in 2004.

Why would he publish a false or fake story, knowing that if it was proven wrong his entire career would be diminished? No sane person would take such a gigantic risk unless they were supremely confident in the story they were reporting.

As for the government, they have a vested interest in making sure the narrative doesn't change.

The killing of Bin Laden is one of the signature achievements of Obama's presidency. To admit that the CIA had little to do with finding Bin Laden diminishes the story. So does the fact that there was no firefight and Bin Laden was a sitting duck, gifted to the US by a stroke of luck thanks to a Pakistani informant. Also, it doesn't help Obama's legacy if it turns out his decision to carry out the mission was a relatively safe, no-brainer, not a gutsy call worthy of being mythologized.

In the end, the killing of Bin Laden will live on forever. It was a seminal moment in American history. But was the story that the government fed to us real? Or was it a dramatic embellishment used to elevate President Obama's status and help him get re-elected?

At this point, my money is on the latter.

Ready For Bernie

Conventional wisdom says Hillary Clinton is a shoe-in for 2016.

She has a resume that is unrivaled, with decades of experience as a lawyer, first-lady, senator and secretary of state. Of course she has her haters, but Hillary is a true political rock star, arguably the most famous woman on planet Earth.

In the polls, she is light years ahead of just about every Democrat in the field. A recent Real Clear Politics poll had Hillary at 62.2%- more than 49 points ahead of her closest challenger, Elizabeth Warren (12.7%).

Anytime word surfaces that a Democrat might challenge Hillary, they are more or less laughed at. You can't beat Hillary. Stop wasting your time. Why are you even trying?

I admire Hillary. She is smart, qualified and a great leader. If she wins the Democratic nomination for president I will gladly vote for her over whomever her Republican opponent might be.

But the presidency is not a birthright. It must be fought for. It must be won by someone who proves to the country that they are the best person for the job. It is not a crown reserved for the next in line just because it's their turn.

The challenges we face today are daunting. Income inequality is out of control. The middle class is being wiped off the map. Climate change is threatening our very existence.

We must elect a leader in 2016 fit for the times, a FDR for the 21st century who will stand up to the millionaires and billionaires who've hijacked our democracy, protect the most vulnerable and save us from environmental doomsday.

That leader isn't Hillary Clinton.

It's Bernie Sanders.


SEARCHING FOR AUTHENTICITY

Watching Hillary on the trail, I must admit that I have been impressed. She has taken on a more populist tone and focused much of her attention on helping the middle class, ending mass incarceration and fighting for marriage equality.

All of these positions are commendable. But one must wonder, is this truly what Hillary believes? Is it really her? Or is she capitalizing on a growing populist movement, doing her best Elizabeth Warren impression?

This is the problem with Hillary. Despite all of her great qualities, she never seems authentic. She comes off as scripted, eternally swayed by the political winds, tweaking her tone and words based upon the crowd she's speaking to and what's popular at the time.

In many ways, Bernie is the anti-Hillary.

Unlike Hillary, you always know where Bernie stands. He is not secretive or wishy-washy. He is consistent in his views and beliefs. He does not flip flop, even when it's politically advantageous.

As Matt Taibbi wrote recently in Rolling Stone, "[Bernie] is the rarest of Washington animals, a completely honest person. If he's motivated by anything other than a desire to use his influence to protect people who can't protect themselves, I've never seen it."

It's great that Hillary has adopted a populist message recently, but Bernie has been preaching it for decades. He's was decrying income inequality before it was trendy. He was lobbying for a single-payer health care system back when it was taboo. He's been railing against big banks and the consolidation of wealth in the hands of a select few since the 1980s when he was mayor of Burlington.

In a similar vein, I'm glad Hillary is fighting hard for marriage equality, but it's important to remember that she used to be against it and only "evolved" her views recently. Not Bernie. He voted against DOMA and has always been a staunch supporter of LGBT rights and marriage equality.

Recently, Bernie told the New York Times, "I'm not evolving when it comes to gay rights. I was there!" 

And, oh yeah, Hillary voted for the disastrous Iraq War. Bernie voted against it. 

TAKING ON THE BIG ISSUES

Two weeks ago, at a campaign round table in Iowa, Hillary unveiled the four goals of her campaign.

1. build the economy of tomorrow

2. strengthen families and communities

3. fix political dysfunction by getting money out of politics

4. protect the US from threats like terrorism

All four goals are commendable. Unfortunately, she didn't leave any room for fighting climate change.

In fact, Hillary rarely, if ever, discusses climate change or global warming. She won't even take a position on Keystone XL. It's an issue of monumental importance yet she gives it almost no attention.

Meanwhile, Bernie Sanders is a long-time champion of the environment and a staunch opponent of Keystone XL. He is one the few politicians who has consistently shined a light on climate change and the threat is poses not only for America but for mankind.

In addition, he's crusaded against the Koch Brothers for profiting off the destruction of our planet. He's also gone after climate deniers like Senator Jim Inhofe, calling his know nothing stance on climate change "dead wrong." 

Standing on the precipice of climate doomsday, do we really want to elect a leader who rarely ever broaches the subject of climate change? Are we really going to put our faith in someone who largely ignores the greatest threat to humanity? And offers no solutions to fix it?

Absolutely not.

Instead, we must elect a leader who understands the severity of the climate crisis we face, a leader who will take serious, bold action to prevent environmental doomsday. As Bill McKibben wrote recently, that leader is Bernie Sanders.

But it's not just Bernie's environmental stance that puts him ahead of Hillary. It's his economic agenda as well.

At a time of unprecedented income inequality, do we really expect Hillary Clinton- a longtime Wall Street supporter and sympathizer- to take on the big banks and push for real, meaningful reform?

After all, as Ezra Klein recently pointed out, Hillary's biggest donors are all banks, while Bernie's biggest donors are all unions. Is Hillary going to break up the big banks after accepting millions of dollars from them? No way.


BERNIE 2016

The middle class is dying. The planet is in peril. We need a leader fit for the times. A leader with a backbone of steel who is consistent, authentic and always says what they believe, even when it's not popular or politically advantageous.

In any other election, Hillary Clinton would be a fine candidate.

But today's challenges are too big, too daunting and too severe to simply hand the presidential crown to the next in line.

We can't afford to elect a pro-Wall Street moderate who is swayed by the political winds and turns the other way in the face of climate doomsday.

We need a bold, progressive thinker with a proven track record; a leader with real integrity who never wavers in their defense of the most vulnerable and has the courage to take on the Koch Brothers, break up the big banks and fight climate change head-on.

We need Bernie Sanders.

If Netanyahu Wins, The Peace Process Loses

Imagine for a moment that you have been living under a rock the past few years. You wake from your slumber to see a foreign leader bashing your president on the floor of congress. This charismatic leader warns of an impending disaster and says your president is responsible. He asks you, as well as your elected leaders, to join him in sabotaging your president's deal.

His rhetoric is lofty. It sounds incredibly convincing. Every ten seconds the crowd erupts with applause. But soon you realize that, despite his powerful words, this foreign leader offers no plan of his own to avert the upcoming "disaster."

Then you realize that this leader is speaking to congress just two weeks ahead of his re-election bid. His speech isn't designed to solve the "disaster" he warns against. It's only intended to win him a few more votes by elevating his reputation as a distinguished "statesman" on the world stage.

Now imagine that the country the foreign leader comes from has been your closest, most cherished ally for decades. And oh, by the way, the foreign leader who is speaking to your congress secretly arranged the visit without the knowledge or approval of your president.

This is exactly what happened on Tuesday when Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu spoke to the US Congress about the need to reject President Obama's nuclear deal with Iran.

MISSING THE FOREST AMONGST THE TREES

After watching Netanyahu's speech, one would assume that the biggest, most pivotal issue facing Israel is a nuclear Iran.

Problem is, it isn't.

Israel knows that America will not allow Iran to get a nuclear weapon. Even if a "bad deal" includes the 10-year sunset clause, which Netanyahu rails against, it's not like America will sit back and allow Iran to build a bomb in 2025. We will go to war with Iran and blow up their facilities if we get even the slightest inkling that they are close to going nuclear.

In the mean time, Obama's deal would make Israel more safe in the short term because it forces Iran to bring their nuclear program out of the shadows and be closely monitored and kept in check for the years to come.

As a result, the biggest issue facing Israel isn't a nuclear Iran, as much as Netanyahu would love for you to believe. Instead, it's an issue that the Israeli Prime Minister devotes almost zero attention to: making peace with the Palestinians.

Simply put, if Netanyahu wins re-election on March 17th, the peace process loses.

A staunch opponent of a two-state solution, Netanyahu has no interest in reaching a peace settlement with the Palestinians. He will continue to build settlements on occupied land, inflaming tensions and stoking hatreds. The people of Gaza will continue to live in squalor, their homes destroyed, their movements restricted and their economic prospects limited.

If Netanyahu wins, the next half-decade will be just like the last. Gaza Wars will become annual events, a new one launched every summer. 

Meanwhile, Israel will move closer to becoming an apartheid state. 

But unfortunately, none of this even gets mentioned; not on the nightly news and especially not in a televised speech to congress.

ROOTING AGAINST BIBI

Netanyahu's decision to address congress was a partisan move that adds nothing constructive to the Iran conversation. It only serves to dishonor the historic, bipartisan partnership between the United States and Israel.

But that's not the only reason why it's so destructive. 

It's so destructive because it consumes all the oxygen in the room. It serves as a shiny object that everyone can stare at, which excuses them from addressing the elephant in the room: making peace with the Palestinians. 

I must admit, on a purely visceral level, I loved Netanyahu's speech. It made me proud to be half-Jewish. It made me proud that the Jewish people have their own country and can now defend themselves against people who vow to wipe them off the map.

But Bibi's speech does not come in a vacuum. It does not change the fact that it was a deeply cynical and destructive partisan move.

As an American, I won't be voting in the Israeli election. But I'll be rooting against Bibi. 

Not because his speech disrespected my president or dishonored the historic partnership between the US and Israel- but because if Bibi wins, the peace process loses.

Calling Things What They Are: If ISIS Is Islamic, Then Giuliani Is A Racist

As ISIS rampages across the Middle East- beheading, raping, killing and burning alive their enemies- America engages in a never-ending debate over what to call them.

Republicans explode with rage every time President Obama refuses to refer to ISIS as "Islamic" or "Muslim." They argue that Obama must call ISIS, and groups like them, what they are. His refusal to call a spade a spade, they say, is the fundamental reason why Obama's strategy (or lack thereof) to defeat ISIS will fail.

In turn, Obama argues, smartly, that labeling ISIS as "Islamic" or "Muslim" is a terrible idea because it undermines the US's standing with Muslims worldwide and hands a propaganda gift directly to ISIS.

Labeling noxious beliefs and mass murder as "Islamic" would play right into the hands of terrorists who claim that the United States is as war with Islam itself. The last thing the president should do... is imply that the United States lumps the world's 1.5 billion Muslims with vicious terrorist groups.

It seems unlikely that both viewpoints will be reconciled. Obama appears dug in on his decision not to call ISIS "Islamic." Meanwhile, Republicans continue to skewer him for refusing to do so.

The back and forth debate is important because it brings to light two competing perspectives: the one that sees everything in black and white, and the other that sees the complexity of things, the nuance, the uninhabited gray area.

Republicans embrace the black and white. ISIS is Islamic. They are Muslim extremists waging a war against the West. The United States is at war with Radical Islam. There is no nuance. No cost-benefit analysis of how calling them "Islamic" could backfire and play into ISIS's hands.

Obama, and most Democrats, see the complexity of the situation. Calling ISIS "Islamic" doesn't solve anything. It just perpetuates the dangerous narrative that the US is at war with Islam. It frays relations with moderate Muslims by making them seem guilty by association.

But, for the sake of argument, let's humor the Republicans. Let's ignore Obama's sound logic and start referring to ISIS as "Islamic terrorists."

But while we're at it, let's start calling other things for what they are, also.


RUDY'S RAGE

Rudy Giuliani, the famous former Major of New York City who was in office during 9/11, caused an uproar earlier this week when he made bizarre, disparaging comments about President Obama.

I do not believe, and I know this is a horrible thing to say, but I do not believe that the President loves America. He doesn't love you. He doesn't love me. He wasn't brought up the way you were brought up and I was brought up through love of this country.

First off, setting aside the racist innuendo about Obama being the "other," Giuliani's statement is laughable because, just on a base level, how can he possibly claim to know what's going through Barack Obama's head? He has no idea what Obama really thinks or believes.

The image Giuliani paints of Obama- as an un-American foreigner- didn't just fall out of the sky. It has been finely crafted by Fox News and birthers like Donald Trump, over years and years.

It ignores the fact that Obama is a legal American citizen, born in Hawaii. It ignores the fact that Obama epitomizes the American dream- a biracial son of a single mom, raised by his grandparents, who went on to become the first black to lead the Harvard Law Review, then the first African American ever elected President of the United States.

Instead, he is the other. He is a radical tyrant hell-bent on destroying America. He wasn't born here. He isn't like us. He's a Kenyan socialist. Where is his birth certificate?

Giuliani's comments are just the latest chapter in the same Obama-hating book, written by Republicans since 2009.

But Rudy didn't stop there. In defending his initial comments, Giuliani dug himself an even deeper hole.

Some people thought it was racist - I thought that was a joke, since he was brought up by a white mother, a white grandfather, went to white schools, and most of this he learned from white people... This isn't racism. This is socialism or possibly anti-colonialism.

In what bigoted, alternate reality does having a white mother disqualify racism? Somehow if you make racist comments toward someone, if that person has a white mother it magically exonerates the racism? Like white mothers are racist kryptonite?

Giuliani's bizarre logic proves just how bigoted and out of touch he really is.


CALLING THINGS FOR WHAT THEY ARE

If Republicans are right, and things must be called for what they are, then the same logic that requires ISIS to be labeled "Islamic" must also be extended to other things.

Surely, calling a spade a spade isn't only applied to terrorists. It a guiding philosophy that must be applied everywhere, to everything. It cannot be subjective.

ISIS calls themselves the Islamic State. They are deeply devout, religious fanatics that pray 5 times a day and know every verse of the Koran. They shout Allahu Akbar when they kill someone. They worship the Prophet Muhammad and kill those who disrespect him.

Forget that ISIS perverts Islam. Or that the vast majority of Muslims are peaceful and denounce ISIS. Or that by calling ISIS "Islamic terrorists" we feed the narrative that the West is engaged in a war of civilizations, that the West hates Islam.

To Republicans, it's simple. Forget all that nuance and complexity. ISIS is Islamic. And America is at war with Islam.

But by that same token, if we are now in the business of calling things what they truly are, then it must apply to everything across the board.

Giuliani accuses Obama of not loving America even though he has no idea or proof of what Obama really thinks or believes. He paints him as the other, an un-American foreigner, even though Obama was born in America and is just as American as you or me.

Then, when he is called out for being racist, Giuliani claims innocence because, duh, Obama's mom was white! As if that is some sort of trump card. Everything is seen through the prism of race and color, even Giuliani's explanation for why he's not a racist.

So, sure, let's follow the Republican lead and start calling things by their real name.

But If ISIS is "Islamic," then Giuliani is a racist.

It's only fair.

Everyone Keeps Asking "When Will Muslims Stand Up To ISIS?" Well, Guess What? In Jordan, They Just Did

In late August of last year, the gruesome execution of American journalist James Foley by ISIS shocked the world. It wasn't just that Foley was beheaded, it was the fact that it was on camera, finely produced, thrown in our faces in spectacular fashion. It terrorized us in a way we never thought possible, instilling a sense of visceral, gut-wrenching fear not felt since 9/11.

At the time, it was hard to imagine that ISIS could exceed the level of evil and barbarity displayed in the Foley video. But nearly six months later, they have.

This time, the victim was not a journalist or an American. It was a 27-year-old Jordanian fighter pilot named Moath al-Kasasbeh, who was captured by ISIS in late December when his plane crashed in Syria.

ISIS didn't behead him. Instead, they drenched him in gasoline and burned him alive in a cage.

The reaction to al-Kasabeh's murder in Jordan has been severe. King Abdullah has vowed a "earth-shaking" response. There are demonstrations all across the country. Jordanians are marching in the streets, burning pictures of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. They are demanding justice and revenge.

For all those who have been calling on Muslims to denounce radical Islam and stand up to ISIS, guess what? Jordan just did.


A MOVE THAT WILL BACKFIRE

The decision to execute al-Kasasbeh in such brutal fashion was a calculated one by ISIS.

First off, it terrorizes civilians under its control into obeying its rules, a twisted Machiavellian-type move intended to consolidate power through fear. It also serves as compelling propaganda to recruit thousands of new, inspired jihadists into its ranks.

However, aside from the immediate, short-term victories that the execution provides ISIS, it's looking more and more like it will backfire on them long term.

For years, a growing narrative has emerged that there is a civil war going on in the Muslim world, with a vast majority of peaceful moderates battling a sadistic few that pervert the religion of Islam.

Political pundits and cable news hosts have demanded time and time again that moderate Muslims stand up to the extremists and reclaim their religion.

In many ways, the request is absurd because it places an undo burden on the vast majority of Muslims who do nothing wrong. After all, no one asks Christians to denounce the KKK or neo-Nazis.

Nevertheless, there is a kernel of truth to the argument.

But now that argument is over.

The death of al-Kasasbeh has awoken Jordan. There is no more standing on the sidelines.

Before, it was Western hostages being executed by ISIS, drawing them into the fight. But now ISIS has executed a fellow Muslim, one of their own: a revered lieutenant from a predominant Jordan tribe who prayed 5 times a day and carried a Quran in his pocket.

In the streets, the people of Jordan are standing up to ISIS. They are denouncing them left and right, performing a joint, public excommunication of ISIS from Islam.

The Jordanian Air Force is literally writing "you are not Muslim" in chalk on bombs bound for ISIS targets.

A Jordanian pilot hammered the point home with a sign that read "Do not think Allah is unaware of what the wrongdoers do."

WINNING THE WAR OVER IDEOLOGY

In recent weeks and months, the mainstream Western media has claimed that ISIS is on the run and getting desperate. They are being pounded by coalition airstrikes, losing thousands of fighters and pieces of military equipment each month. In addition, ISIS just lost the the battle of Kobane, a city they spent nearly five months trying to topple.

However, despite more than 1000 airstrikes, ISIS is actually gaining territory in Syria. And while it's true they are losing thousands of fighters in battle, they are recruiting thousands of new foreign fighters each month to replace them.

Which makes Jordan's decision to take on ISIS so important.

It's the first loud, proud, unabashed example of a powerful Muslim country standing up to ISIS and denouncing them in 100% unison as "un-Islamic."

It's the first clear, dramatic example of a Muslim country taking on ISIS to re-claim Islam.

It may not change the calculus on the ground. But it's a ray of hope in an otherwise dark sea of despair.

Bibi's Dangerous Game

Over the course of our short, 239-year history, America has had many allies in the world.

Our oldest ally is France. They fought alongside us in the Revolutionary War. They also share many of the same values we do, such as freedom of speech and freedom of expression, a common bond we were reminded of during the tragic Charlie Hebdo attack.

Another great American ally is the United Kingdom. Sure, they used to be our overlords but that is water under the bridge. They gave us Winston Churchill and we gave them FDR. Together we won WWII. They also gave us the Beatles and the Stones, which we are eternally grateful for.

Recently, the media has focused like a laser on America's complicated alliance with Saudia Arabia. While many Americans find their treatment of women, whipping of bloggers and beheading of criminals abhorrent, Saudia Arabia remains the #1 Arab-ally of America, both economically and militarily. President Obama hammered this point home by visiting Saudi Arabia to honor the death of King Abdullah.

But although France, England and Saudi Arabia all share a close partnership with America, when it comes to strategic importance, no ally comes close to Israel.

Israel is the only Western democracy in the Middle East. Without Israel, America would have no sphere of influence in the Arab world. In turn, without America's financial, political and military support, Israel would be dangerously isolated, surrounded in all directions by volatile nations that want to see Israel wiped off the map. The partnership is symbiotic, which is why it's so important.

But the US-Israel alliance isn't just some cold-blooded geo-political agreement made out of necessity, America and Israel genuinely like each other. America supports the Jewish people. We are home to the biggest population of Jews outside of Israel. We helped them secure their independence. We helped liberate them from the concentration camps.

More broadly, we share a similar philosophy and outlook on life. We are both progressive thinkers. We are both a nation of immigrants. Both of our countries gained their independence through war. We both believe in science, capitalism, free speech and gender equality.

America will always stand by Israel. However, after Netanyahu's latest attempt at undermining Obama in front of Congress, it seems that Israel is pushing the limits.


GOING TOO FAR

In order to make sense of the latest feud between Obama and Netanyahu, it's important to take a step back and see how we got to this place.

Obama is seeking a historic nuclear agreement with Iran. The talks are ongoing and have been for some time. Netanyahu's fear is that Obama agrees to a bad deal that allows Iran to acquire a nuclear bomb, a legitimate concern seeing as though Iran is vehemently anti-semitic and has on more than one occasion boasted about wanting to wipe Israel off the map.

Netanyahu, who is up for re-election in March, has made a calculated decision to do whatever it takes to derail the US-Iran nuke talks.

Which brings us to the controversy at hand: Netanyahu accepting an invitation from House Speaker John Boehner to address the US Congress about the need to ratchet up the Iran sanctions, which would effectively sabotage the deal.

Netanyahu's decision to speak to the US Congress is irresponsible and antagonistic on several fronts.

First, and most egregious, is that he will be speaking to Congress just weeks before the Israeli Elections. As a result, it's clear that Netanyahu is playing politics with his country's most important ally for personal gain. He is trying to elevate his status and increase his chances at winning re-election by appearing as a grand statesman on the world stage. He is trying to win votes by interfering in and engaging in partisan American politics.

Second is the disrespectful manner in which the speech was secured. Netanyahu broke protocol by not informing Obama of the invitation from Boehner. Even worse, days earlier the Israeli Ambassador, Ron Dermer, met with John Kerry for over two hours and never even mentioned the upcoming speech to congress.

Is that any way to treat your number one ally?


REASON AND LOGIC WIN OUT

Fortunately, the backlash against Netanyahu's move to undermine Obama and inflame US-Israeli tensions is fierce.

He has been hammered on all sides.

Michael Oren, the former Israeli Ambassador to the US, has called on Netanyahu to cancel his speech to Congress, which "created the impression of a cynical political move."

Amos Yadlin, a former Israeli military intelligence chief, went a step further, saying Netanyahu was being "irresponsible."

"When we manage our relationship with the US, we have to manage it simultaneously with the president and Congress. [Netanyahu] has made it into a partisan issue in the US, and we cannot let Israel become a problem for one party or another."

Even Fox News (!!!) denounced Netanyahu's move and came to Obama's defense. When do they agree with Obama on anything??

In the end, the backlash against Netanyahu shouldn't be seen as an attack on Israel. It shouldn't be held up as evidence of anti-semitism.

Instead, it should be seen as a justified response to reckless, cynical behavior; a condemnation of risky political gamesmanship that dishonors the historic partnership between the US and Israel.

After all, the US and Israel are sacred allies. We must do everything we can to strengthen our partnership, not strain it.

We can't afford to let petty partisanship undermine our alliance, especially at a time when the Mideast is in flames.

Now, more than ever, the US and Israel need to be united, not divided.