'J Street' to the Left of me, jokers to the Right...
When one is attacked from both sides, it's easy to feel virtuous. Having opponents from the far left and the far right does not guarantee you're a moderate. It simply situates you in what farmers who trusted butter over its artificial modern substitute would have called the "margarine middle." Last week I was hit from both extremes. There seems to be a missing "nuance gene" when it comes to Israel. The most reasonable people, the most skilled professionals, somehow find themselves behaving irrationally, talking wildly and acting sloppily when the topic is raised. My previous blog, "Israel's self-hating Jews," which condemned Ariel Mayor Ron Nachman for blaming the Obama settlement freeze idea on the president's "Jew boy" advisers, triggered numerous attacks against me for daring to question the mayor's horrific choice of words. You would have thought Mayor Nachman was the holy Reb Nachman of Breslav, given his devotees' intensity. My critics refused to acknowledge that using such language - when trying to convince a State Department delegation, no less - was crude, rude and self-defeating. Nachman's followers took an attack on him as an attack on them, on Israel, on the Jewish people and on truth itself, while perceiving it as a deluded defense of Obama's foreign policy, despite my criticisms of the administration's Israel strategy. Most disturbingly, they felt completely justified using offensive, racist language to describe fellow Jews with whom they disagree, thus undercutting those of us who have been forced to spend far too much time fighting anti-Semitism, anti-Zionism, racism, and ethnic stereotyping of all kinds. These rhetorical bomb-throwers confirmed every liberal caricature of the aggressive, self-righteous, my-way-or-the-highway settlers - but characteristically blamed me for helping to perpetuate that stereotype. Let me say regarding the "Jew boy" issue what I say when anti-Semites masquerading as "mere" anti-Zionists compare Israelis to Nazis. Intelligent people can find a rich choice of words to convey disdain without resorting to cheap, ugly, inflammatory anti-Semitic language that reveals the critics' own prejudices. Defending Israel is not Smearing Obama or Bullying Mary Robinson
Just as savvy lawyers teach their associates to pound the table harder the weaker their argument becomes, Israel's critics are accusing its defenders of "smear" tactics and "bullying." In the toxic atmosphere which pollutes Middle East discourse, rife with accusations about super-powerful Jews doing their dirty work through the omnipotent "Jewish lobby," Israel's defenders are frequently put on the defensive. These unfair, hysterical accusations undermine the democratic discourse essential to governing effectively, especially in a complicated, messy policy arena such as the Middle East. Let's face it, no one wants to be accused of McCarthyite tactics, and few people have the stomach these days to be on the wrong side of Barack Obama and his minions. People who dare criticize the American president get the kind of treatment Marc Stanley, the chairman of the National Jewish Democratic Council, meted out in The Jerusalem Post this week. Honoring Mary Robinson, Obama honors appeasement of anti-Semitism
In the latest example of President Barack Obama's utter and complete tone-deafness regarding Jewish sensibilities, the White House has announced that Mary Robinson will be one of sixteen recipients of the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor in the United States. While Robinson has had a distinguished career as the President of Ireland and a human rights activist, she has also displayed a consistent anti-Israel animus. Most disturbing, she was one of the people most responsible for the great debacle at Durban, 2001, when a conference convened to fight racism became a UN-sponsored hate-fest against Jews. At a time when Barack Obama should be honoring Winston Churchills in the fight against anti-Semitism, he has chosen a Neville Chamberlain, someone who appeased the haters at Durban and in the UN again and again, until it was too late. Obama at 100 days
Barack Obama has just completed his first hundred days as president, an artificial benchmark rooted in Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal. John Kennedy proved more successful than his first hundred days suggested, marred as they were by the aborted Bay of Pigs attack against Cuba. George W. Bush's presidency ended less successfully than it began. Still, a presidential character starts forming during this honeymoon, while story lines emerge that determine a president's destiny. Obama's greatest challenge has been saving America's economy, but he cannot ignore foreign policy. Domestically, Obama wants to match Franklin D. Roosevelt and Ronald Reagan, presidents who restored hope, revived the economy, and redefined Americans' relationship with government - in this case correcting Reagan's anti-government drift. Regarding foreign policy, Obama appears to follow Theodore Roosevelt with a twist. TR advised: "Speak softly and carry a big stick." So far - and the presidency remains young - Obama is speaking softly to enemies, treating friends coolly and carrying a medium-sized stick. 'Thank you, George W. Bush'Once again, in Israel's hour of need, George W. Bush has supported the Jewish state eloquently, passionately, gracefully. At a time when most presidents use their rapidly shrinking bully pulpit to burnish their legacies, Bush devoted one of his final Saturday radio addresses to defending Israel's actions and condemning Hamas. "This recent outburst of violence was instigated by Hamas, a Palestinian terrorist group supported by Iran and Syria that calls for Israel's destruction," Bush declared. He added that "Since Hamas's violent takeover in the summer of 2007, living conditions have worsened for Palestinians in Gaza. By spending its resources on rocket launchers instead of roads and schools, Hamas has demonstrated that it has no intention of serving the Palestinian people." George W. Bush has consistently used this kind of clear rhetoric to distinguish between Palestinians' self-destructive addiction to terrorism and Israel's justified self-defense. Mumbai "Blowback" - terrorists miscalculated again
Islamist terrorists are no doubt celebrating the Mumbai mayhem, convinced they triumphed somehow by turning luxury hotels, a train station and a Jewish community center into killing fields. And in the media's pathological patter - shaping too many Westerners- defensive defeatism - talk of the "militants'" "successful operation" feeds these triumphalist delusions. In fact, once again, the terrorists miscalculated. Their depraved actions triggered another "blowback." India's three days of terror boosted George W. Bush's legacy, strengthened Barack Obama's fortitude in combating terrorism, embarrassed many Indian Muslims, highlighted the ugliness of Islamist anti-Semitism and triggered worldwide sympathy for the victims. Strangers united to mourn the spiritually-inclined American father and daughter shot in a hotel, the altruistic Montreal doctor and social worker slain on vacation, the lovely Lubavitch Jewish couple murdered in their outreach center, and the dozens of good citizens of India who suffered the most from these thugs. Say No to Rabbis for Obama
Now that the American election is over and this will not seem to be a partisan attack, it is time to ask whether it was appropriate for hundreds of rabbis to launch an unprecedented organization, "Rabbis for Obama." The organization's founding letter, which over four hundred rabbis signed, said: "We join together as rabbis who believe that Barack Obama is the best candidate to be President of the United States, and we do so in the belief that he will best support the issues important to us in the Jewish community." This initiative constituted a clear attempt to give a rabbinic hechsher - stamp of approval -- to Barack Obama. There is nothing wrong with a rabbi, as an American citizen, choosing to endorse a candidate. But there is something unseemly about rabbis pooling their theological and spiritual authority as rabbis to boost a particular politician. Polarized Jews in a depressing election
Political campaigns are like social stress tests, regularly scheduled exercises that add enough extra pressure on the system to expose weaknesses - and strengths. The long 2008 election has uncovered certain American fault lines. Within the Jewish community, the results of the 2008 electoral stress test have been equally sobering. Partisans from both sides have behaved abominably, demonstrating a growing hysteria and close-mindedness. Perhaps the most infamous Jewish contribution to this campaign is unproven. Many reporters have claimed the various e-mails accusing Barack Obama of being a Muslim targeted Jews or originated with Jews. There is no solid proof of this. Internet hoaxes, like most urban legends, are hard to track. But anytime I have written anything remotely positive about Obama in the Jewish media, many bloggers have charged that "Barack HUSSEIN Obama" is secretly a Muslim and I am helping this Manchurian candidate deceive America. Obama at his worst - and his bestOn Tuesday, Senator Barack Obama's speech on race in America tried to quell the controversy over his America-bashing, race-baiting, Israel-hating pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright. For days, video clips of Wright spewing his poison threatened to neutralize Obama's populist magic. Until Tuesday, the controversy showed Obama at his worst. His response to his pastor's demagoguery was mealy-mouthed and disingenuous. It was impossible to believe Obama's Clintonesque claim of ignorance, that he never "sat in the pews" during one of Wright's wrongheaded riffs. And Obama's failure over a twenty-year relationship to criticize his mentor's venom stirred doubts about Obama's judgment, patriotism, and commitment to the unity he celebrates. Yet once again, Illinois' rookie Senator hit a grand slam with two strikes against him. Obama's speech was thoughtful, thought-provoking, rich, complex, effective, poetic, and inspiring. Walk in the footsteps of JFK
Clarifying Barack Obama's stance on Israel is secondary to figuring out how he understands the world. As the Obama Phenomenama grows, many who are not completely starry-eyed fear his foreign policy may be too starry-eyed. The 46-year-old senator's foreign policy can best be summarized in two words: "Leave Iraq." Echoing the 1960s' get-out-of-Vietnam movement, this approach risks perpetuating the delusions of the Clinton 1990s he usually rejects, ignoring the ugly realities facing post-9/11 America. As a former community organizer, Obama cares most about domestic issues. His experience overseas is limited - beyond his oft-distorted Indonesian sojourn when young. Like most Ivy League-educated idealistic Americans, he assumes compromises can be found for every foreign conflict, while viewing "evil" as a right-wing Republican spectre not a force in today's world. And considering how high he has soared with his charisma and eloquence, he naturally assumes he can handle any world leader, one on one. |
 |
 
Combined feed for all JPost.com blogs
Top Rated Posts
Tags:Blogroll |
Comments (26)
