The new face of antisemitism

Actually, it’s not a new face at all — it goes back to Mohammed himself, and his paranoid, resentful rants when the Jews refused to accept him as a prophet.  What makes it new is that, thanks to the modern age and the Leftist media, these messages, which used to be confined to backward desert regions, are all the rage, all over the world:

 

New Trends in Arabic Anti-semitism from Henrik Clausen on Vimeo.

It’s that kind of crap (pardon my language), that allows Reuters to write this kind of crap:

Police said it was a “terrorist attack” — Israel’s term for a Palestinian strike. It was the first time Jerusalem had been hit by such a bomb since 2004.

Or that allows Obama to use only passive voice in speaking of Palestinian terrorism, passive voice so extreme he doesn’t even do the usual passive voice technique of waiting until the sentence’s end to include the noun that did the verb.  Instead, he manages never to include any actor in the sentence at all.  He’s not the only one, of course.

Anti-American, anti-Semitic NPR fundraising executives punked *UPDATED*

I’m actually grateful to NPR.  It was its unbelievably biased Israel coverage that helped me make the break with my reflexive liberalism and take a long, hard look at my political beliefs and party affiliation.  Nevertheless, it irks me no end that my taxpayer money funds NPR, PBS and local affiliates.  There is no reason in this day and age to have government media, especially government media that is hostile to more than half the American population and wants to roll around naked in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood.

If you don’t believe me about NPR’s beliefs and desires, you must read this Daily Caller article and take the 11 minutes to watch the video that is a part of the article.  It’s disgusting but it’s also wonderful, because it shines sunlight in an area the Progressives have tried to keep shady.  Considering that the NPR executive who got punked said it would be best for NPR to lose its federal funding, my response is, let’s give the guy what he wants.

UPDATE:  I like NPR’s defense which amounts to this:  since we didn’t immediately accept their phony bribe, we’re “appalled” by Schiller’s comments, and Schiller got another job, get off our back.

“The fraudulent organization represented in this video repeatedly pressed us to accept a $5 million check, with no strings attached, which we repeatedly refused to accept.

“We are appalled by the comments made by Ron Schiller in the video, which are contrary to what NPR stands for.

“Mr. Schiller announced last week that he is leaving NPR for another job.”

It doesn’t seem to occur to the NPR folks that the video shows Schiller desperate to get a steady stream of income from a Muslim Brotherhood organization that wants to give a platform to Hamas and Hezbollah, two terrorist groups.

Brilliant Israeli satire

Caroline Glick is the Andrew Breitbart of Israel, since it was she who founded Latma, the group that uses comic skits and music to lambaste Israel haters.  As an Abba fan, I especially enjoyed this one:

I’m also becoming a really big fan of the guy doing the singing.  He’s one of the main Latma performers, and he’s always entertaining.

The Obama administration at the U.N.

I’m so upset about what happened at the UN today, I can’t speak (or write).  Hot Air explains what happened:  after casting a veto against the Security Council’s vote on Israeli settlements, the U.S.’s Ambassador, Susan Rice, launched into a vitriolic attack that would have come easily from the lips of the Syrian or Iranian representative.

Omri Ceren wonders what Rice was trying to accomplishment.  While Rice and Obama may be confused in a hate-filled way, J.E. Dyer explains that the Islamic totalitarians in the Middle East understand that Rice just fired the starting gun in the race to Jerusalem.

And lastly, Jennifer Rubin points out that, whether because they were blinded by the Obama shell game (diddle around with the vote and then give an ugly speech) or because they’ve got their heads buried in their derrieres, Jewish groups in America haven’t made a peep about Rice’s appalling speech.  (By the way, Rubin notes the silence; I editorialized about the heads going where the sun don’t shine.)

I’m just sick about this.  I warned every Jew I knew what they could expect from Obama, but did they listen?  No!  Next to blacks, they were the largest single group to cast the majority of their votes for him.  Idiots!  Idiots!

But of course, if the semi-oil rich Middle East goes rogue on Obama’s watch, we all suffer, not just the Jews.

Idiots!

Muslim (and Obama administration) antisemitism

If you want a good lesson in the depth, breadth and virulence of Muslim antisemitism, Andrew Bostom provides it.  Then think long and hard about the fact that the current administration is siding with these Muslims at the United Nations.  I’m still struggling to come to terms with the appalling nature of the administration’s decision, and can’t quite decide what to write.  Others, though, have written about it:

Omri Ceren

John Podhoretz

Abe Greenwald

Rick Richman

Rick Moran

Guy Benson

Maetenloch at Ace of Spades

Jennifer Rubin (twice)

Jay Nordlinger

Bryan Preston

Bottom line:  the Obama administration is engaging in a noxious blend of appeasement (and we know how well that works) and the wonderful opportunity to slam Israel for the “disgust” it feels towards that nation.

TIME Magazine — not your parents magazine anymore

Almost thirty years ago, just after college, I got a summer job in a hospital administrative office, filling in for a gal who was on maternity leave.  One of the guys in charge of that office looked, to my fevered young eyes, just like Tom Selleck.  He wasn’t very nice, he wasn’t very educated, and he wasn’t very bright, but he sure looked good.  Naturally, I was always delighted when he joined in a conversation to which I was a party.  I remember that about him.

And I remember one other thing.  I was talking to an office mate, and I mentioned an article in TIME Magazine, a copy of which was always lying around my parents’ house.  (My dad got discount subscriptions through the teacher’s union.)  The Tom Selleck look alike turned to me with something approximating a sneer twisting under that big 80s style mustache, and said “TIME Magazine?  That conservative rag?  You need to read Newsweek.”

Looking back, the first thing that makes me laugh is that someone would think he was showing his intellectual chops by boasting that he read Newsweek, not time.  Such is life, I guess, when you’re the male equivalent of a dumb blond. The other thing that’s laughable is that he considered TIME “conservative.”  Of course, this was San Francisco in the 1980s so, even for guys pretending to be Tom Selleck (a true conservative, bless his heart), TIME was untenable.

The thing that’s really weird, though, when I resurrect that memory, is to realize how completely things have changed.  Back in those days, every middle and working class family I knew (except for the Chinese ones, because of the language barrier) had TIME or Newsweek, or both.  Those magazines shaped the middle class view of the political scene in ways its almost impossible to comprehend nowadays.  Every week, those magazines told us what to think, complete with great pictures.  TIME had occupied that role for roughly 50 years, and Newsweek for almost that long.

Today, Newsweek, after being sold for $1, is a small little opinion magazine that no one reads.  And TIME is still struggling on as a regular sized opinion magazine that (a) tries to pretend it’s actual journalism and (b) that no one reads.  Fine.  That’s business.  You ignore your market, you die.

But what makes TIME’s decline truly execrable is that, as it sinks into the bottom tier of the media muck, it’s garbed itself in the one garment to all Left wing bottom feeders:  antisemitism.  This antisemitism, typically, is masked as anti-Israel sentiment, but we all know the difference.  When you relentlessly demonize a state that is functionally equal to or much better than most other nations, you have to look at what makes that state stand out from the nations being given a pass.  And if the one unique feature is that state’s Jewishness — well, bingo!  There’s your answer.  TIME is working on replacing The Protocols of the Elders of Zion as profitable reading material.

The Ivory Tower gets further sullied; and by the way, Sarah Palin was the victim of a blood libel

Ivory Tower used to be a compliment.  Now, just as ivory has degraded in social standing (the whole death of elephants thing), so too has the Ivory Tower’s star fallen (the whole death of logic, common sense, morality and actual education thing).  This morning, I posted about UC Berkeley’s buffoonish Chancellor (paid by taxpayers, both state and federal), who waded in on behalf of lunatics everywhere by opining that the insane, vaguely Leftist Loughner was a manifestation of the conservative movement.  Oh, yeah!

My friend Zombie now alerts me to the fact that — and this is true — since 2009, Berkeley has played host to a “scholarly,” taxpayer-funded, “academic” center that focuses on right wing movements.  No, really.  It’s true.  Really.

As Zombie says, “Students can now get a Bachelor’s degree in TEAPARTY=NAZI with a minor in OMGREDNECKS!”

What Zombie further discovered was that — no surprise here — one of the center’s scholars in residence has given his scholarly opinion (Did you get that?  This whole thing is scholarly, so you have to take it seriously) that the Tucson shooting is all the fault of American conservatives.  Zombie comments amusingly (as always) on the fact that this academic freely admits that there is no connection between Loughner and the right wing but, res ipsa loquitur, he still concludes that right wingery must be Loughner’s motivating force — because, after all, what else could be?  (Hint:  Loughner hears voices in his head.)

Aside from the rank intellectual dishonesty behind that scholarly conclusion (and that’s the nicest thing I can think to say), what really impressed me was the way in which it was written.  Since these opinings are the product of a modern academic, the writing is turgid, polemical, cant-filled, and barely intelligible:

Unlike in the case of Oklahoma City, where the perpetrator was explicit in his insurrectionary aim and managed to pull off his catastrophe, in Tucson there is enough ambiguity about the perpetrator that radicalism on the right is unlikely to feel the need to abate. In the absence of, as it were, a smoking gun—the perpetrator himself assuming responsibility in the name of the movement—the impact of Tucson is likely to be an amplification rather than any amelioration of the fierceness of our political climate.

This unintelligibility is, of course, the product of Leftist education. When I was at Berkeley 30 years ago, I drove my professors bonkers when I kept asking them to explain their Marxist claptrap. I was sufficient naive that, at the time, I didn’t know it was Marxist claptrap.  As a grammarian and lover of the English language, I simply knew that it was impossible to understand the arcane words, bizarre sentence structure and illogical ideas I routinely heard and read in my classes. You couldn’t parse those sentences for love or money.

So, respectfully, I kept asking them — teachers and fellow students — to explain. And they couldn’t. They couldn’t because (a) they had no idea what the phrases they were parroting meant and/or (b) they understand that there was no meaning behind those phrases.  (As for choice “a,” I will forever lovingly recall the desperate student who wrote, regarding The Picture of Dorian Gray, the Oscar Wilde’s descriptions of flowers throughout the text were “meant to represent the phallic symbolism of the female sexual organs.”  Ooo-rah!)

Just to show that I’m not making this up (or that I wasn’t too stupid to understand my teachers and their texts), here is an actual prize-winning example of bad writing from UC Professor Judith Butler:

“The move from a structuralist account in which capital is understood to structure social relationships in relatively homologous ways to a view of hegemony in which power relations are subject to repetition, convergence, and rearticulation brought the question of temporality into the thinking of structure, and marked a shift from a form of Althusserian theory that takes structural totalities as theoretical objects to one in which the insights into the contingent possibility of structure inaugurate a renewed conception of hegemony as bound up with the contingent sites and strategies of the rearticulation of power.”

Take that, oh ignorant Sarah Palin, who has the temerity to communicate using familiar words, organized in logical fashion, adding up to understandable ideas. How dare she?

And speaking of “how dare she?,” somehow all this ties into Palin’s newest (alleged) rhetorical crime, which consists of using the phrase “blood libel” to describe what the chattering classes aimed at her in the wake of the Tucson shooting. Many (well, make that the New York Times) are upset about this. The paper of anti-Israel record is horrified that one of the most philosemitic politicians in America would dare to use a phrase associated with Jews.

Color me limited (and Jewish), but it seems to me that she used the perfect phrase.  You see, a blood libel, such as the one aimed for centuries at Jews (still aimed, by the way) is a statement that, without any proof whatsoever, accuses someone of having  . . . yes, innocent blood on his or her hands.

In today’s news context, to savage Palin for accurately describing what was being done to her as a “blood libel” is the equivalent of a high tech lynching.  Whoops!  Did I use another metaphor that is only allowed for certain races?  Silly me.  I thought language in America was a vehicle for communicating ideas, not for isolating (or slicing and dicing) races, classes, and victims.

Our universities have a lot to answer for.  In the 1960s, craven administrators, embarrassed by their possible  complicity in racism, collapsed before the student revolts.  Worse, in the coming years, they took those students into the fold as academics themselves, nursing the viper to their collective breasts.  The result is a generation of Marxist, antisemitic, statist, incoherent people who use their academic credentials and bombastic, unintelligible writing to flim-flam the masses and, worse, to try to control the intellectual tone in this country.

A small thing to do to counter an attack against Israel

Greg Gutfeld calls it “Students Against Hummus, Not Hamas,” which is a very funny description of something that’s not funny at all:  Anti-Israeli students at Princeton, offended that two Israeli companies are provided the hummus sold in school-run stores, are making a lot of noise about “expanding” the hummus selection.  The point, of course, is to defund Israeli companies.  The larger issue is “BDS,” which stands, not for Bush Derangement Syndrome, but for the Boycott, Divest and Sanction movement that is trying to use economic forces to destroy Israel.

At Brain Droppings, Bill C has a suggestion for a small way that you can provide big support for the Israeli hummus companies.  Also, feel free, when you’re in a store selling Israeli-made goods, to buy those products.  I don’t recommend Israeli chocolate (call me a chocolate snob) but, really, you can’t go too far wrong buying other Israeli-made products.

New memes and old facts when it comes to the oldest hatred

Lately, Mr. Bookworm has been obsessed with Glenn Beck, and he keeps attacking my conservativism by saying that Beck is the “most dangerous man in the world.”  The genesis for this theory is a series of Jon Stewart shows that skewered Glenn Beck shows, in which the latter attacked George Soros.

Soros, of course, is genetically Jewish, although he was raised as a Christian, assisted the Nazis with collecting Jewish property (an experience he describes as one of the best in his life), and is implacably hostile to the State of Israel,  a hostility he backs by funding all sorts of anti-Israeli groups and causes.  Nevertheless, because Soros is sort of Jewish, Stewart argues, and Mr. Bookworm believes, that Beck’s attacks on Soros are the television equivalent of the Protocols of the Elders of Zion.

The “Beck is an antisemite because he’s attacking George Soros” meme is spreading.  Mr. Bookworm was very excited this morning to read a New Yorker opinion piece making precisely the same point:  Beck is an antisemite because he’s pointing out that Soros is an antisemite.  What’s really funny is that Beck quotes Soros directly, while the New Yorker labors mightily, using only its own words, to construct a narrative of Soros as victim, rather than an antisemitic sociopath who happened to have Jewish ancestors.  Some spin.

This Soros/Beck focused meme is that it cleverly manages to ignore the real antisemitism out there — and that antisemitism, with the exception of a few universally ignored paleocons, comes from the Left.  A case in point is the way in which liberal churches are allying themselves with the Palestinian “underdog,” merely because Palestinians are underdogs.  The churches seem blind to the fact that these “underdogs” promote homosexual murder; the enslavement, torture and death of women; the genocide of Jews, the “wrong” Muslims and Christians; etc.  For liberals, all that matters is that they’re underdogs.  ‘Nuff said.

Likewise, these same churches are advocating the pernicious “replacement” theology, the same theology authorized the anti-Jewish atrocities that characterized the Middle Ages and, in Eastern Europe, managed to stay alive all the way through World War II.   Currently, this “replacement” theology is especially foul because it’s being used to deny the Jews’ ancient and continuous ties to the Holy Land.

Others on the Left, blinded by their hated for George Bush (who has always supported Israel) and by their reflexive and ignorant affiliation with “underdogs” who are struggling against the U.S. and Israel (never mind that the underdogs are indistinguishable from Nazis, or worse, in their beliefs), are equally hostile to Israel and, by extension, to the Jews.  JoshuaPundit has noted on two occasions that Andrew Sullivan, the intellectual darling of the Left, makes pronouncements that could easily have come from any old Jew hater — not that you’d ever hear them from Beck, who hates only Soros, but not the Jews.

Funnily enough, neither Jon Stewart nor the New Yorker, nor any other liberal (and liberal-Jewish) people and publications, seems to have a problem with the blatant antisemitism emanating from the Left.

British politician claims Israel is the root cause of world wide terrorism

Yes, you read that post caption correctly.  British Liberal Democrat Jenny Tonge, in a speech in the House of Lords, claims that terrorism around the world is Israel’s fault, because Israel treats the Palestinian’s badly:

On the issue of world conflict prevention, Tonge then said: “It is a disgrace to us all that problems such as Kashmir and Palestine are still alienating Muslims all over the world.

“The treatment of Palestinians by Israel is held up as an example of how the West treats Muslims,” she said, “and is at the root cause of terrorism worldwide.”

You have to check out the JPost article to get the full flavor of her delusional rant.

How does one talk to someone like this, someone who, moreover, has quite the bully pulpit to articulate her particular brand of insane poison?  It doesn’t seem to occur to her that, even if one assumes that her premise is true, and that Israel doesn’t treat Palestinians well, that’s scarcely an explanation for the Muslims’ worldwide terror spree.  If not being treated well explains worldwide terrorism, we should be on the receiving end of terrorism from Israelis, who are treated badly by the surrounding Muslims; from Kurds, who are brutalized by the Turks; from Christians, who are brutalized everywhere in the Muslim world; from expatriate Cubans, whose compadres are prisoners in their own country; from Tibetans, who are on the receiving end of totalitarian, often genocidal treatment from the Chinese; etc.

But that’s logic, and logic doesn’t work in crazy land.  This is a woman who has convinced herself that jihad has nothing to do with Islam itself, and everything to do with victim status.  Well, it’s time for the Jews to start claiming victim status, then.  Maybe that will turn around her lunacy.  Or maybe not, because what we’re really seeing here is hardcore antisemitism, of the type that knows no logic or rationality.

And I thought I just disliked him because his films are boring and pompous

I never liked Jean-Luc Godard movies.  I go to movies to be entertained, not bored.  He failed my simple test.

Aside from being (in my mind) a boring film maker, it turns out that he is, as well, a deep, blatant, vicious antisemite.  Of course, if you’re a New York Times consumer, you’d never know that.  And what’s really bad is that the New York Times doesn’t avoid Godard’s antisemitism because the Times is itself ignorant of Godard’s ugly side.  Nope, the Times is well aware of it.  It’s approach, therefore, is to gloss over, explain away, and excuse his depravity.

I doubt anyone, with a straight face, can disagree with me when I say that the Times would have responded differently if evidence ever emerged that Godard had said “I dislike gays/blacks/Asians/Hispanics/Muslims/other victim group that suits the Times’ criteria.”

What makes George Soros tick?

Barry Rubin thinks he knows.  I would say “what a sad, pathetic little man,” except for the fact that his “sad, pathetic little man” is one of the richest people in the world, and is using his personal pathologies to destroy a nation and its people.

“I am Spartacus-berg”

At Rhymes with Right, Greg tells about a peculiar interaction he had at a Democratic-themed blog, where his argument in favor of free speech earned an attack against him based upon his Jewishness.  Although Greg was flattered, he isn’t actually Jewish.   He concluded, that the claim that he is Jewish was meant to be an insult, and was aimed at deflecting the whole notion of free speech as something peculiarly (and evil-y) Jewish.

Scott Kirwin, who blogs at The Razor, left an excellent comment:

I take that [being called a Jew] as a compliment. Ever since Daniel Pearl said it before he was murdered, I view it as an act of defiance.

In other words, saying “I am a Jew,” whether or not one is, is giving an upraised finger to the forces of totalitarianism and tyranny.

Naturally, this led me one step further:  Just as the Danes (wasn’t it the Danes?) once upon a time, before they turned into a Muslim nation, deflected the Nazi’s genocidal attacks against their Jewish citizens by all proudly donning the yellow star, shouldn’t all of us, as free people, say “I am a Jew?”

Yesterday, I suggested that all of us, men and women alike, confess to affairs with John Boehner, a la the “I am Spartacus” scene in the eponymous movie.  Today, I suggest that we all say “I am Spartacus-berg” because, in the face of the oncoming darkness, we must all stand as Jews or accept the death of liberty.

Is Europe trying to save itself?

I don’t have a link yet (it was tweeted), but it appears that the Swedes elected a center-right government.  I see this as a good thing, although I haven’t lost sight of two facts:  (1) Europe is so far Left that, as we know from England, even center-right is Left; and (2) the cancer of antisemitism has managed to permeate most of Europe, irrespective of Left and Right.  Only if/when the Europeans realize that, in their efforts to preserve their culture against Islam’s latest assault, they are on the same side of the battle lines as the Jews will they be able to eradicate this vile disease.

The difference between active and passive antisemitism — and why TIME falls on the wrong side of the line

One of the dominant PC d0ctrines is that you’re not allowed to dislike people based upon race, religion, creed, country of national original, sexuality, gender, etc.  This is one step beyond federal law, which merely says that you cannot discriminate against people on those grounds.

I heartily agree with the federal law.  In a free, democratic society, your skin color or religion (or whatever else), standing alone, should not subject you to discrimination.

(Please note that I said “standing alone.”  I do believe that, if your religion requires you to engage in certain practices that are inconsistent with a job, its reasonable for the employer not to hire you, since he is discriminating based on conduct, not religion.  Neither the orthodox Jewish woman nor the conservative Muslim woman should be applying for a job at Hooters, and Hooters is right to refuse them employment if they refuse to wear the Hooters’ costume.  Likewise, considering that fire fighters carry tons of gear and drag people out of burning buildings, I don’t think a 5′ tall, 95 lb gal should get the job because it would be “discriminatory” not to hire her.  In the event of a fire, I want to be rescued, as opposed to burning to death in the glorious consciousness that I have sacrificed my life to political correctness.)

PC, though, cannot change the fact that, within our own heads, we may well dislike a specific group.  I happen to dislike one group.  I don’t like their language, their culture, their food or their music.  BUT I DON’T WISH THEM ILL.  I wish them every success, I want them to enjoy the full benefits of our country’s wealth and freedom, and if a family from this group moves into my neighborhood, I will welcome them with open arms, provided that their desire is to blend with my neighborhood, not to change it.  Are you my feelings irrational?  Absolutely.  Are they invalid?  No, I don’t think they should be.  Because I DON’T WISH THIS GROUP ILL.

The same holds true for what I’ve long called “active” versus “passive” antisemitism.  Kelly LeBrock may have whined for years that one shouldn’t hate her because she’s beautiful, but I’ve always come at it from the other side, which is that you don’t have to like me just because I’m Jewish. You see, in a healthy society, we don’t force people to like each other, but we do prevent them from harming each other based on those dislikes.

A perfect example, to my mind, of passive antisemitism, is Dorothy Sayers’ first book, Whose Body?, written in 1920s England, during the height of England’s passive antisemitism.  It has as its centerpiece a manifestly Jewish corpse (presumably because of the never-explicitly-stated circumcision), which allows for all sorts of references to Jews being money-grubbing and clannish.  That’s passive antisemitism.  Sayers doesn’t get Jews and doesn’t much like them.  Fine.  By this time, no laws discriminated against Jews, and its manifest that Sayers does not wish them ill.  She just doesn’t want to hang with them.

Active antisemitism is different, because it adds to the hostility a desire for Jewish destruction.  We saw this with the Nazis, and we see this with the Muslims.  It is not enough to say “I don’t like Jews.”  This antisemite must take it to the next level of physical suffering and death.

Of course, as with everything, there’s a continuum.  The Time Magazine cover story claiming that Jews don’t care for peace shows a magazine on the move to the ugly side of that continuum.  On its face, the article seems to be passive antisemitism, in that it simply repeats ancient, ugly tropes about Jews being amoral, money-grubbing animals.  Fine, Time doesn’t like Jews.

But there’s a subtext here, which is the fact that the article is written as part of the coverage regarding yet another round of Israel/Palestinian talks.  And what the article doesn’t acknowledge is that the Palestinians have been very open about their active antisemitism:  they want Jews dead, very, very dead.  And so when Time writes an article like this, it is working to hasten Israel’s destruction by empowering the Palestinians in a sham “process,” that has as its ultimate goal Israel’s destruction.  TIME WISHES JEWS ILL.  And that is the type of antisemitism that is as active as it gets.

Helping American Jews learn to give Sarah Palin the love she deserves

Israel has no greater friend than Sarah Palin.  She has shown repeatedly that she has a deep and abiding respect for the Jewish state, and that she understands the existential stresses under which it survives.  Benyamin Korn gets this and, despite incredible derision from Jewish Democrats, has begun working to build a Jewish coalition recognizing Sarah’s myriad virtues vis a vis Israel.

As part of Korn’s effort, he has started a blog site called Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin.  The website needs a bit of polishing, especially since the newest posts seem to be appearing at the bottom, not the top, which makes the site look stale, rather than vital.

That’s cosmetic stuff, though, and easily fixed.  What matters is the substance here, which is that Korn is trying to get American Jews past their superficial prejudices (“she’s from Alaska;” “she speaks funny;” “she didn’t go to an Ivy League college;” “she belongs to a fundamentalist Christian sect;” etc.) and instead to look at the woman’s substance.

I don’t know whether Sarah is ready to be president, whether she is electable (given how much the Left’s hatred permeates society, infecting people who are casual about their politics), or whether she is actually presidential material.  Only time will tell.  What I do know about Sarah is that she is a truly admirable American, many of whose values resonate with me and with most Americans (even those prejudiced Jews); that she is a bone-deep philosemite, whose appreciation for Jews extends to the state of Israel; and that she is a political powerhouse who cannot and should not be ignored.

So, please, check out Jewish Americans for Sarah Palin.  Help make it a vital, much-read website.  American Jews, how have long been on the receiving end of unthinking prejudice, need to expand their minds.  They need to leave behind a Left that is increasingly, and openly, antisemitic, and they need to look to their true friends.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

How Journolist and Oliver Stone each serve to highlight the other’s insanity

While the MSM would clearly like the whole Journolist discussion to vanish (as evidence by the fact that I haven’t found mention or, at least, prominent mention of it in any traditional print media), the fact  remains that it’s out there and it’s ugly.  The bits and pieces we’ve seen show major journalists and their academic counterparts to be petty, irrational, paranoid and illiterate, which really isn’t what you want in the journalist class of a healthy democracy.

While I’m sure that not all of the 400 participants necessary showed all, or any, of these behaviors at all, or any, times, it is sufficient that a critical mass showed these behaviors and personal failings at significant times — such as the times in 2008 that they were actively engaging in massaging the news to ensure that their chosen candidate had a clear path to the White House.

What’s also disturbing for me about the Journolist is the fact that so many of its members have Jewish names.  You’ll notice my careful phrasing there.  I don’t know if they’re actually Jewish or not.  I don’t know if those who are Jewish actually practice the religion.  And of those who practice the religion, I don’t know whether they practice the religion in a way that has traditional religious resonance, or is just the Jewish liberal bow to Rosh Hashana, Yom Kippur, and the Sabbath candles.  As to the latter group, assuming it existed on the Journolist, it’s easy to claim religion when you just go through the rituals.  It’s a little harder when you try to align your Torah with the Democratic handbook and the Alinsky rules for living.

I mention the Jewish thing here, not because I want to feed the minute, but venomous, Patrick Buchanan wing of the conservative party, but because it’s such a perfect foil to the latest lunacy from Oliver Stone.  During an interview with London’s Sunday Times, Oliver Stone — who is planning a helpful miniseries to put Hitler and Stalin “in context” — let loose with some old-fashioned antisemitic venom (emphasis mine):

The 10-part documentary [which Stone is planning] will address Stalin and Hitler “in context”, he says. “Hitler was a Frankenstein but there was also a Dr Frankenstein. German industrialists, the Americans and the British. He had a lot of support.”

He also seeks to put his atrocities in proportion: “Hitler did far more damage to the Russians than the Jewish people, 25 or 30m.”

Why such a focus on the Holocaust then? “The Jewish domination of the media,” he says. “There’s a major lobby in the United States. They are hard workers. They stay on top of every comment, the most powerful lobby in Washington. Israel has f***** up United States foreign policy for years.”

Goebbels couldn’t have put it better.

What’s so funny, in a sick, sad way, is that, looking at the Journolist, it really does seem as if there is Jewish domination of the media — except that the Jews doing the so-called domination are completely in sync politically with Oliver Stone.  They’re all left, left and more left.  They’re just all too dumb to realize that, when you get as far Left as Stone, the antisemitism stops being coy little references to capitalism, Israeli imperialism and Palestinian victimhood.  Instead, it becomes the active antisemitism that travels from Chavez’s attacks on Jewish businesses, to Stalin’s periodic kangaroo court purges and suppression of religion, to Hitler’s final solution.  (And I mention those three Leftist antisemites here because Stone specifically speaks of them as either admirable or misunderstood, or both.)

If you want to get away from “Jewish domination” and get into a more balanced media, with representatives of all sectors in American society you have to go to the conservative media.  There, you’ll find as mixed a bunch of people as you can ever hope for:  Catholic, Protestant, Mormon, Hindu, Jewish, Atheist, black, white, Hispanic, Asian, Muslim (a few), male, female, gay, straight, and some I know I’ve forgotten or haven’t even imagined.

These truly diverse voices part ways on some issues, especially social ones, but they remain remarkably unified on the core principles that have always defined America (whether not America has always been successful in practicing these principles):  small government, small taxes, maximum personal freedom, equal justice under the law for all American citizens, and strong national security.

Anyway, if you’d like more information about the journalists on the Journolist, I highly recommend this article on Noisy Room, which gives a clear indication of their media preeminence (and, therefore, their power to influence public opinion).

New country discovered at the Marin County Fair

I spent yesterday at the Marin County Fair.  It was, for the most part, a very pleasant experience and could have been any county fair, anywhere in America.

The kids wanted to spend all their time on the midway, standing in long hot lines, spinning to the point of acute nausea, and being suspended upside down for considerable amounts of time.  The carnies hawked games guaranteed to lose you as much money as possible, as quickly as possible, in pursuit of elusive and always disappointing prizes.

Inside the fair buildings, you could see beautiful arts and crafts, flowers, creative writing samples, science projects, etc., all the while scratching your head as to why that one, rather than this one, won the prize.

Head over to the farm area, and you could see racing pigs, sleeping turkeys (that was an unexpectedly funny one, as the turkey just collapsed where it lay, so that everyone kept asking “is it dead?”), ridiculously cute bunnies, and surprisingly beautiful chickens.  All in all, a typical county fair.

Or maybe not so typical.  First of all, I must share with you the garbage cans gracing the fair.  On the Midway, where the hoi polloi hang out, the garbage cans are ordinary, garbage-in-here cans.  But on the other side of the fair, the one with the booths and displays, the cans definitely cater to Marin sensibilities:

Clutching the children’s dripping ice cream cone remainders in my hand, I was quickly able to eliminate “bottles and cans,” but got confused by “compost” versus “landfill.”  I finally went with the latter choice, seeing it as the safer, catch-all option.  But really, who knew that there was going to be an environmental IQ test at the garbage cans at the county fair?

There was another thing that was atypical, not for ordinary fairs, but for the Marin fair.  Every year, the Democrats and the Republicans set up booths.  What fascinated me this year (and this is an entirely unscientific observation, based on my own periodic walks past the two booths) was the fact that the Democratic booth most closely resembled a ghost town, while the Republican booth consistently had people walking up and just exuded energy.  This was fascinating, not only because it visually represented the enthusiasm gap we’re hearing about, but because, in Marin, going near Republican things can make you radioactive if your friends catch you — but this year, fewer people seemed to care.

But what I really wanted to post about was the fact that a new country has been discovered at the Marin County Fair.  I kid you not.  You see, the fair’s theme was “Going Global — Connecting Cultures.”  In the spirit of that theme, the YMCA contributed an umbrella that its members (presumably its young members) had decorated.

I was too short to see the top of the umbrella, but I could see that base holding the umbrella had pasted on it the names of different countries.  (The pictures are sidewise to make it easier to view the writing.)  You’re familiar with many of these countries:

As you have, I’ve heard of Colombia, the Netherlands, New Zealand, and Honduras.

Things got a bit surreal, though, on the other side of the umbrella base:

Honduras, Zambia, East Jerusalem, Ireland, Bangladesh.

Whoa, whoa!

Did you say East Jerusalem?

Why, yes, I think that, if you were working with the Y in Marin, you did indeed say that there is a nation among nations called “East Jerusalem.”  Apparently the Y is ahead of even the U.N.’s own wishful thinking curve.  If it could, there’s no doubt that the U.N. would go back and undo that pernicious 1948 vote creating and recognizing the State of Israel.  But why wait for the U.N. to act when you can do it yourself at the Marin Y?

I sometimes think that Marin might be its own country too.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News

A challenge to us all to renew the philosemitic paradigm in America

Stand With Us is an extraordinarily important organization.  I cannot emphasize that enough.  Its goal is to counter the calumnies that an unholy union of Leftists and Islamists spread against Israel, especially on college campuses.

The Stand With Us founders realized something that American Jews and other friends of Israel had missed completely:  while most kids, Jewish and non-Jewish, go to college to get educated and have fun (not necessarily in that order), a certain sector of Muslim students goes to college, not for education and fun, but to delegitimize the State of Israel.

Delegitimization is not a sideline or a hobby.  This is the main goal.  On college campuses, the vehicle for this goal, usually, is the Muslim Student Union (“MSU”).  Outside of college, CAIR dedicates itself to the same full-time principle.

Here’s a useful analogy, especially if you’ve lived through teenagers.  You are a busy person.  You have a job, a household to run, obligations to your community, and children to raise.  Your teenager is not a busy person.  Oh, sure, he or she attends school and has some extracurricular activities, but they’re just side issues to the teenager’s main goal:  getting what he or she wants.

So if your teenager wants a new pair of ridiculously expensive shoes, that is what will occupy your teenager’s every waking thought.  And your teenager will let you know that.  You will never hear the end of the shoes.  While you’re trying to finish a major project, run errands, cook dinner, clean house and manage the carpools, all that your teenager is saying is “I want those shoes.  I want those shoes.  I want those shoes.”

Those Muslims dedicated to Israel’s destruction are precisely the same — they eat, sleep, live and breath destroying Israel.  They are completely dedicated and well-funded.  (We’ll just guess where that money comes from, right?)  And for about 30 years, they’ve been the only voice heard, especially in the higher education world.  When they set up their tables on campus malls, Jewish kids and other friends of Israel walked by them in disgust, but pretty much ignored them.  They were pernicious, but who really cared, right?  After all, there are final exams next week and parties this week.

But just as a drop of water can wear away a rock, the relentless anti-Israel messaging has had an effect on those who know nothing about Israel.  The know-nothings are the vacuums that the MSU and CAIR has been filling.

Filling this vacuum has been especially easy on campus because college professors are so often Marxists, and the Marxists have made common cause with the Islamists.  Each for their own reasons wants Israel and traditional Western values gone.  When they’ve achieved that goal, then they’ll fight over the spoils.  This means that college students — young, uninformed, malleable, and encouraged to be open to new ideas — are being filled with anti-Israel bile, within the classroom, on the campus plazas, and inside of the meeting rooms and dormitories.

As for whether the anti-Israel bile shades into old-fashioned antisemitism, look at what the MSU, CAIR, and their allies, both Muslim and Leftist say, and you will see, over and over and over, the signs of antisemitism that Natan Sharansky has helpfully spelled out:  demonization, delegitimization, and double-standards.  Those factors appear on every campus, in every Leftist march, and at every U.N. gathering.

Which brings me back to Stand With Us:  This organization aims to fill that 30 year old vacuum.  By providing students from all over the world with pro-Israel facts, by training them to stand up to a fact-devoid but hate-filled argument, and by giving them mountains of attractive, easy-to-read, and fact-filled written materials, Stand With Us is fighting back.

If you believe in Israel’s legitimacy, and her right to survive as a nation among nations, then you should donate to Stand With Us.  (You’ll find contact information here.)  If you believe that Israel’s and America’s fates are tied together, not because of some nefarious Jewish lobby, but because both are truly the last bulwarks in the world of true democracy and individual liberty against onslaughts by Leftism and Islamism, then you should donate to Stand With Us.  If you believe that freedom of speech means that the truth should be heard, then you should donate to Stand With Us.

But I have another challenge for you, one that isn’t just about giving money to what has become the premier organization in the world for countering anti-Israel slanders.  I want you to help me change the American zeitgeist, which has become very hostile to Jews.  This means, of course, changing America’s popular culture.  I’ve written before about the fact that I came of age in the post-WWII era when Jews were admired.  Israelis were seen as plucky Davids, and Jews at home were seen as wise, funny and principled.

That’s changed so much.  Israel is now seen as a rapacious, repressive, apartheid-style, genocidal nation.  And Jews — well, Jews support that regime, so how good can they be?

Worse than that, the Jews we see in popular culture, the Jews that Hollywood promotes, are not nice people.  Larry David is truly a brilliant comic mind, but his show, Curb Your Enthusiasm, presents an extraordinarily loathsome individual:  self-centered, insensitive, demanding, cheap, malicious, etc.

David is not an anomaly.  The most popular Jewish comedienne, and another one with her own show, is Sarah Silverman:  vindictive, vicious, anti-Christian, and neurotic.  Oh, and how about Jon Stewart?  He’s neurotic, anti-Christian, hostile to traditional American values, exceptionally foul-mouthed, etc.

These are the Jews that the mid-West sees.  No more long-suffering, wise and kind George Burns; no more silly Milton Berle; no more wildly talented Irving Berlin, George Gershwin, or Jerome Kern; no more hapless Jack Benny.

I’m not asking you all to become movie stars.  I am thinking, however, about the fact that the next generation, my kids’ generation, gets the world through entertainment media.  To change the paradigm for that generation, how about a rockin’ song that manages to interweave Israel’s 3,000 year old connection to Jerusalem?  How about an awesome video game, a la Call of Duty, that has IDF soldiers hunting down Ahmadinejad?  How about a warm-fuzzy comedy, which has an old-fashioned Hollywood Jew, wise and funny, rather than neurotic and mean-spirited?

Adam Sandler was on the right track when he did You Don’t Mess With The Zohan, a movie about a wildly talented Israeli Special Forces fighter who really wanted to be a hairdresser, but it was too gross to gain enough traction.  So far the only other thing Hollywood has managed to do recently about Israeli goals and fighters was Munich, in which Spielberg managed to make Israel look evil for bringing mass murderers to justice.  Spielberg gets great kudos for his Holocaust work, but it’s pretty clear that his interest in Jewish well-being ends with 1945.

So, if you have any type of talent, or if you know someone who does (I don’t, and I don’t), Israel needs your help.  It’s not enough to educate the people in the vacuum aware of the facts.  We need to make them care about the facts — and that’s done by changing the pop culture paradigm.  So, to borrow a perfect pop culture phrase:  JUST DO IT.

Israel hasn’t changed; the world has *UPDATED*

[Prepare yourself; this is a long one.  Long-time readers may also recognize that I’ve cannibalized old posts in the service of a new point.]

A friend sent me a link to a 1951 video, showing a popular American singing group celebrating the creation of the State of Israel, something that had happened only three years before:

The affection a mainstream entertainment group felt for Israel was not anomalous back in 1951.  In the eyes of the American public, Israel — and the Jews — were starting what was to be a pretty good run for a number of decades.  This was not a historical accident but was, rather, the confluence of myriad social and geopolitical events.

On the home front, Jews had gone from being alien immigrants clogging New York’s Lower East Side, to becoming middle-class citizens who fully embraced every aspect of American life.  Sure, they might do their worshiping on Friday nights and Saturday mornings, and sure the men wore those funny little skull caps, and absolutely you wouldn’t want your daughter to marry one, but they were still — and quite obviously — solid Americans who embraced the same values as their goyish next-door neighbors.  In other words, for those who liked to justify the irrational, American Jews in the post-war era were not “deserving” of active antisemitism.

It helped that the post-WWII generation had seen exactly what active antisemitism looked like.  Active antisemitism wasn’t the American habit of barring Jews from neighborhoods, banks and law firms.  Nope.  Active antisemitism was serious stuff:

Lager Nordhausen, a Gestapo run concentration camp

Child dying on streets of Warsaw Ghetto

Mass grave at Bergen-Belsen

For the first time ever, Americans understood precisely how far insane, irrational race hated — and, especially, antisemitism — could lead.  The notion of Jews having their own country, a place from which they could defend themselves, made perfect sense to Americans who, less than 200 years before, had also created their own country.

When the nations of the world, in the form of a vaguely philo-semitic and pretty damn guilty UN, voted the State of Israel into existence, Americans cheered.  And when the surrounding Arab nations immediately declared war, intent upon creating a second Holocaust, public sympathy lay with the State of Israel.

This public sympathy was not just a post-War flash in the pan.  Twenty years later, when the Arab nations manifestly intended a second Holocaust, American sympathy again lay with Israel.

A perfect example of the American affinity for Israel is a 100-page 1967 commemorative issue of Life magazine entitled “Israel’s Swift Victory” — referring to the Six Day War in 1967.  What makes the magazine so distinct from today’s media  coverage of Israel is the tone. The Life editors admired Israel tremendously for standing up to the overwhelming odds the Arab nations presented, and for triumphing against those odds. The very first page identifies Israel as a minute, beleaguered haven for Jewish refugees, surrounded by an ocean of hostile Arab nations:

The state of Israel, no bigger than Massachusetts, was established in 1948 in Palestine as a haven for the war-ravaged Jewish communities of Europe. Bitter fighting attended her birth and fixed her boundaries against the surrounding phalanx of hostile Arab states: Jordan cut into her narrow wasp waist and through the holy city of Jerusalem; Egypt along her western desert flank was entrenched in the coastal strip of Gaza. At Israel’s southern tip is the strategic port of Elath, against which Egypt made the play that brought on the war and unhinged the entire Middle East.

Life‘s editors were unsympathetic to Egyptian President Abdel Gamel Nasser’s conduct, which the editors understood presented an existential threat that left Israel with no option but to react. After describing how Nasser, speaking from Cairo, demanded Israel’s extermination, Life editorializes thusly:

The world had grown accustomed to such shows [of destructive hatred towards Israel] through a decade of Arab-Israeli face-offs that seasonally blew as hot as a desert sirocco. Since 1948, when Israel defeated the Arabs and won the right to exist as a nation, anti-Zionist diatribes had been the Arab world’s only official recognition of Israel. Indeed, in the 19 years since the state was founded, the surrounding Arab states have never wavered from their claim that they were in a state of war with Israel.

But now there was an alarming difference in Nasser’s buildup. He demanded that the U.N. withdraw the 3,400-man truce-keeping force that had camped in Egypt’s Sinai desert and in the Gaza Strip ever since Egypt’s defeat in the Suez campaign of 1956 as a buffer between Egyptians and Israelis. A worried United Nations Secretary-General U Thant agreed to the withdrawal, then winged to Cairo to caution Nasser.

He found him adamant. Plagued by economic difficulties at home and bogged down in the war in Yemen, Nasser had lately been criticized by Syrians for hiding behind the U.N. truce-keeping force. With brinksmanship as his weapon, Nasser had moved to bolster his shaky claim to leadership of the divided Arab world.

As a caveat to my post caption (“Israel hasn’t changed; the world has”), I’ll note here that a few things in the world actually haven’t changed:  First, aside from its brief flirtation with decency in 1948, the UN has always been craven. Egypt demands that it withdraws and, voila, it withdraws. The other thing that hasn’t changed, although it’s no longer spoken of in polite MSM company, is the fact that the Arab nations have always used anti-Israeli rhetoric and conduct to deflect attention from their failures and as a vehicle to establish dominance over other Arab nations in the region. In other words, if there weren’t an Israel, the Arab nations would have had to invent one.

In contrast to the fevered, irrational hatred Life describes on the Arab side of the battle line, the Life editors are impressed by the Israelis. Under the bold heading “Israel’s cool readiness,” and accompanied by photographs of smiling Israeli soldiers taking a cooling shower in the desert, listening to their commander, and attending to their tanks, Life has this to say:

With the elan and precision of a practiced drill team, Israel’s largely civilian army — 71,000 regulars and 205,000 reservists — began its swift mobilization to face, if necessary, 14 Arab nations and their 110 million people. As Premier Levi Eshkol was to put it, “The Jewish people has had to fight unceasingly to keep itself alive…. We acted from an instinct to save the soul of a people.

Again, can you imagine a modern publication pointing out the vast disparity in landmass and population between Israel and the Arabs, or even acknowledging in the opening paragraph of any article that Israel has a right to exist? The text about Israel’s readiness is followed by more photographs of reservists preparing their weapons and of a casually seated Moshe Dayan, drinking a soda, and conferring with his men. Under the last photograph, you get to read this:

The Israelis, Dayan said, threw themselves into their hard tasks with “something that is a combination of love, belief and country.”

After using almost reverent tones to describe the Israelis’ offensive strike against the Arab air-forces, which gave Israel the decisive advantage in the War, Life addresses Israel’s first incursion into Gaza. I’m sure you’ll appreciate how the Gaza area is depicted:

Minutes after the first air strike, a full division of Israeli armor and mechanized infantry . . . was slashing into the Egyptian-held Gaza Strip. A tiny wasteland, the strip had been given up by Israel in the 1956 settlement and was now a festering splinter — the barren harbor for 315,000 refugees bent on returning to their Palestinian homes and the base for Arab saboteurs.

Wow! Those clueless (by today’s standards) Life writers actually seem to imply that Egypt, which controlled Gaza for eleven years, had some responsibility for this “festering,” dangerous area.

The Life editors are agog about Israeli military tactics:

The Israeli plan was so flexible that its architects at the last minute switched strategy to avoid a new deployment of enemy forces in southern Sinai. After the air strikes that wiped out the Arab air forces, Israeli armor and infantry swept westward across the waist of Sinai, parallel to the path of the Gaza breakthrough. A smaller column cut south from El Kuntilla, then raced toward Suez. Patrol boats and paratroops were sent to Sharm el Sheikh to break the blockade of the Gulf of Aqaba, but the airborne troops were able to land at the abandoned airfield because the Egyptians had fled. Meanwhile, fighting erupted on another front — the divided city of Jerusalem, where an Israeli pincer column encircled the old, Jordanian section. Yet another Israeli force moved against Jenin, north of Jerusalem. The final Israeli attacked, at the end of the week, was mounted against Syria, which had been shelling border settlements.

The Life editor’s tactical admiration emerges again when speaking about Israel’s successful taking of the Sinai Peninsula:

Stabbing into the Sinai desert, the Israelis stuck to the same strategy that in 1956 had carried them to the Suez Canal in 100 hours: never stop. Although outnumbered more than two to one — by an Egyptian force of almost 100,000 men grouped in seven divisions and supported by 900 tanks — they smashed ahead day and night, outracing the foe, encircling him time and again and trapping thousands of prisoners as Egyptian discipline collapsed. *** The battle — one of the epic armored engagements in history — lasted 24 hours and involved some 1,000 tanks.

Two things occur to me as I read the above descriptions of Israeli strategy in 1967: First, during the 2006 Israeli/Hezbollah war, if press reports are to be believed (and that’s always a leap of faith) Israel did not demonstrate either flexibility or speed. She remained rigidly fixated on using air power, despite the fact that (a) this hadn’t served the Americans that well in Iraq and (b) it didn’t appear to be achieving her objectives.

Indeed, it’s gotten to the point where it’s difficult to imagine the modern Israeli military ever acting with the type of decisiveness and flexibility it showed during the 1967 War.  In the 40+ years since the Six Day War, Israel’s military, like an old man, has become calcified and risk-averse.

The dynamism that characterized its strategy in 1967 was nowhere to be found in 2006, during the Hezbollah War, and its 100% commitment to the worthiness of its own cause seems to have collapsed completely now that Turkey and Iran — two sovereign nations that sit with Israel in the UN — are actively colluding with terrorists to bring weapons into a small neighboring nation-state (that would be Gaza), in order to pave the way for Israel’s destruction.  Only a nation that cares more about world opinion than its own existence would board a terrorist ship armed with paint balls.  Israel’s caving on the blockade is also symptomatic of a loss of faith in itself.

The second thing that occurred to me reading the above was the fact that the Life writers are describing a traditional war: army versus army. Under those circumstances, there’s a tremendous virtue in cheering for the underdog who routs the larger force.

Nowadays, where asymmetrical warfare means that there’s a traditional army on one side and terrorists hiding amongst and targeting civilians on the other side, the battle lines, the tactical lines, and the victory lines can easily be confusing.  This is especially true when you have those, like members of MSM, who don’t understand the nature of the war (one side wants peaceful coexistence; one side wants genocide); who don’t understand that the terrorists are, in fact, well-funded soldiers of Islamic nations, such as Iran and Syria; and who focus on the minutiae of the daily casualty reports without any understanding of the larger dynamics involved (hint:  Iran, Syria and, now, Turkey).

When confronted with the traditional army versus army conflict, as opposed to the illusory “army versus little guy” conflict, the 1967 press could easily distinguish the forest from the trees, as demonstrated in this paragraph:

The Sinai victory had cost the Israelis heavier casualties than the 1956 Suez campaign, 275 dead and 800 wounded. . . . The Egyptian losses were staggering — 20,000 dead by Israeli estimates and perhaps a billion-dollar lost in war materiel. But the objective was gained. Israeli troops took up positions on the east bank of the Suez Canal — and trained their guns on Egypt’s homeland. [Emphasis mine.]

The Life editors also take on what they perceive as the canard that the U.S. blindly allies itself with Israel — a canard that persists to this day, and one that Barack Obama has taken wholly to heart.  Indeed, I have no doubt but that Obama is seriously considering as solid strategic advice the message he received today from Al Qaeda:

Al Qaeda’s American-born spokesman has repeated the terror group’s conditions for peace with America in a video released Sunday.

Adam Gadahn called on President Barack Obama to withdraw his troops from Iraq and Afghanistan, end support for Israel, stop intervening in the affairs of Muslims, and free Muslim prisoners.

If I remember correctly, that was pretty much the same deal (albeit with different nations and another kind of totalitarianism involved) that Hitler offered Chamberlain back in 1938.  And we know how well that turned out.

Back in 1967, the intelligentsia that controlled the MSM wasn’t as easily deceived as the Ivory Tower crowd and media heads are now.  In discussing UN proceedings and, specifically Soviet behavior, the magazine’s editors demonstrated that they understood that Israel was then, as it is now, a pawn in a larger game.  Because this is an extraordinarily important point, and one manifestly ignored on the Left (and often misunderstood in the non-ideological middle), I’m reprinting in its entirety the magazine section focusing on the Cold War aspect of Israel’s travails:

As the Arab soldiers and refugees made their sad and painful way from the scenes of their defeat, the Soviet Union threw its heaviest oratorical gun into the United Nations in an effort to salvage some of what it had lost in the Mideast. Premier Aleksei Kosygin arrived at the General Assembly with an arsenal of invective.

Kosygin put all the blame on Israel and its “imperialist” backers (i.e., the U.S. and Britain). As he saw it, Israel’s “atrocities and violence” brought to mind “the heinous crimes perpetrated by the fascists during World War II.” He demanded the Assembly’s approval for a resolution — rejected earlier by the Security Council — that would condemn Israel as sole aggressor in the conflict, and he proposed that Israel not only be made to pull back to her prewar borders but also to pay reparations to the Arabs for their losses.

He was answered by the Israeli foreign minister, Abba Eban [his speech is here], whose detailed documentation and eloquence told how the Arabs had given his country the choice of defending its national existence or forfeiting it for all time. Then he put Kosygin himself in the defendant’s dock. Russia, he charged, was guilty of inflaming passions in a region “already too hot with tension” by feeding the arms race and spreading false propaganda. He called Kosygin’s reference to the Nazis “an obscene comparison . . . a flagrant breach of international morality and human decency.” As for the Russian demand that Israel pull back to her prewar lines, that, he said, was totally unacceptable until durable and just solutions are reached “in free negotiations with each of our neighbors.” The Arab states “have come face to face with us in conflict; let them now come face to face with us in peace.” Israel was determined not be deprived of her victory.

I assume you caught that the Soviet speaker used precisely the same rhetoric about Israel that has become normative throughout Europe and in most Leftist publications.  He castigated Israel as an imperialist entity and claimed that her tactics were “atrocities” that were identical to those the Nazis used. Unlike today’s MSM, Life‘s 1967 editorial team appears appalled by the tenor and falsity of those accusations.

Back in 1967, the American media was apparently also better able to deal with the fallacious argument stating that Israel is an anchor around America’s neck, dragging her down in her dealings with whomever she happens to be dealing with (whether the Soviet bloc or the Islamists).  The Life editors, some of whom probably were alive, and perhaps fighting, during WWII, understood that an ally’s moral stance is a significant factor in choosing that ally, and that an enemy’s moral deficits are equally important:

The error [the belief that the U.S. unthinkingly supports Israel] arises out of the fact that in most disputes the U.S. has been found on Israel’s side.  That’s because it is the Arabs who challenge the existence of Israel, and not vice versa.

There you have it, in a 1967 nutshell.  The U.S. sides with Israel not because of any hostility to Arabs, but because it recognizes the right of a sovereign nation to defend itself against annihilation — a principle that should be as operative today as it was 40+ years ago.  To the extent that Israel is a mere pawn in larger wars, if America abandons Israel, she is playing right into the hands, not just of Israel’s enemies, but of America’s own.

Because the editors understood the Cold War dynamics at work in the Middle East, they were also clear-headed about the implications of the refugee problem that was arising from the war, a problem that dwarfed the first round of refugees that the Muslim world had begun to use as propaganda tools after the 1948 war, and that the world’s useful idiots funded.  Keep in mind that, in no other place, at no other time, have refugees been kept in stasis in perpetuity.  They have always been resettled, and gone on either to create new communities or to be assimilated within the larger community to which they have relocated.  This would have made especially good sense with the Gaza refugees, who had been simply Ottomans, Jordanians, or Egyptians, depending on the century at issue, the Muslim nation that had regional dominance at the time, and the fellahin‘s geographic proximity to a given Muslim overlord.

Again, because the Life editorial is both clear-headed and prescient, I’m reprinting it here in its entirety (emphasis mine):

The 20th Century’s excellence — and its horrid defects — find some of their most vivid monuments in the hate-filled camps of Arab refugees. The refugees have been supported by the voluntary U.N. contributions of some 75 governments, not to mention the Inner Wheel Club of Hobart, Australia, the Boy Scout Union of Finland, the Women’s Club of Nes, Iceland, the Girls High School of Burton-on-Trend, England, and (for some reason) a number of automobile companies including Chrysler, Ford, G.M. and Volkswagen.

The philanthropy, governmental and private, that has aided these displaced Arabs is genuine — and admirable. The stupidity and political selfishness that have perpetuated the problem are appalling.

Down the ages, there have been thousands of episodes in which whole peoples fled their homes. Most were assimilated in the lands to which they fled. Brutally or beneficently, previous refugee groups were liquidated. Not until our time have there been the money, the philanthropy, the administrative skill, the hygienic know-how and the peculiar kind of nationalism which, in combination, could take a wave of refugees and freeze it into a permanent and festering institution.

In the wake of Israeli victories, the refugee camps received thousands of new recruits, and there may be more if, as seems likely, Israel successfully insists on some enlargement of its boundaries. Thus the refugee problem, one of the main causes of Middle East instability, is about to be magnified.

The early Zionists, looking toward a binational state, never thought they would, could or should replace the Arabs in Palestine.  When terrorism and fighting mounted in 1947-48, Arab leaders urged Palestinian Arabs to flee, promising that the country would soon be liberated.  Israelis tried to induce the Arabs to stay.  For this reason, the Israelis do not now accept responsibility for the Arab exodus.  Often quoted is the statement of a Palestinian Arab writer that the Arab leaders “told us:  ‘Get out so that we can get in.’  We got out but they did not get in.”

After the Israeli victory, Arab leaders outside of Palestine reversed their policy and demanded that all the refugees be readmitted to Israel. Israel reversed its policy, [and] refused to repatriate large numbers of Arabs on the ground that they would endanger the state. Nasser, for instance, has said, “If Arabs return to Israel, Israel will cease to exist.”

Now 1.3 million Arabs, not counting the recent influx, are listed as refugees. The United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) has an international staff of about a hundred and spends nearly $40 million a year, 60% of it from the U.S. government. UNRWA services are performed by 11,500 Arab employees, most them refugees. Obviously, this group has an interest in not solving the refugee problem.

So have the host governments. Consistently they have refused to go along with any plan or policy for the resettlement or assimilation of the refugees, preferring to use them politically. In 1955 the Arab League scuttled a Jordan Valley development project precisely because it would have reduced, perhaps by 250,000, the number of Arab refugees.

It’s about time this dangerous deadlock ended. The inevitable reshuffle of the Middle East ought to include a plan to phase out the refugee problem in five or 10 years. Israel, to show goodwill, should repatriate a few thousand refugees per year. All of the 1.3 million could be absorbed in underpopulated Iran and Syria, provided their governments would cooperate in internationally supported developments projects. Persuading Arab governments to adopt a policy of resettlement should be central to U.S. policy, and it would be worth putting up quite a lot of A.I.D. money to get the job done. [Bolded emphasis mine.]

History has shown the Life editors to be correct when they believed that UN economic interests and Arab political interests would leave the refugee camps as a permanent blight on the Middle Eastern landscape. They were naive only in believing that anyone had the political will to solve the problem. They also could not have anticipated that, in a very short time, the same situation, with its same causes, would be plunged into a looking-glass world, where the Arab governments and the UN were absolved of their sins, and the blame was placed on Israel for not having engaged in an act of self-immolation by taking in these 1.3 million (and counting, and counting, and counting) hate-filled refugees.

America’s fondness and admiration for Israel extended to a cultural appreciation for the Jews as well.  I came of age during the 1960s and 1970s (and 1973, of course, saw the Yom Kippur War, another triumph of Israel’s dynamism that Americans generally applauded).  These were the high water years of America’s pop culture appreciation for her Jews.

If you were around in those decades, you’ll remember a time when popular culture was awash in successful books, songs, and shows that reflected favorably on American Jewish life and culture. For example, when I was a kid, everyone read and quoted from Dan Greenberg’s incredibly funny book, How to be a Jewish Mother. I had a friend who would just double over with laughter every time she thought of the appropriate Jewish mother response if she comes into the living room and finds her daughter necking on the couch with a boy: “Leave this house and don’t come back until you’re a virgin again.”  Another hugely popular Jewish book of the 1960s was Leo Rosten’s The Joys of Yiddish, a book that is a dictionary, a joke book, a cultural history, and a religious history book all rolled into one. (If you haven’t read it yet, you should.)

Anyone over forty also remembers Allan Sherman, the guy who became famous singing “Hello, Muddah; Hello, Faddah” and other ridiculous lyrics to familiar music? His records are still available, but in the 1960s they were a cultural phenomenom.  Sherman’s Ne York Jewishness was an integral part of his humor.  And certainly, no one needs to be reminded of what an enormous hit Fiddler on the Roof was: smash Broadway show, hit movie, and revival after revival. It still does get revived periodically (as was the case in 2004 in New York), but can you imagine it opening as a first run show now, in the same world that lauds a show about about the deranged and pathetic Rachel Corrie?  I certainly can’t.

So much of the entertainment world generally had a Jewish gloss.  Even in the 1960s and 1970s, the Jewish entertainers who hit the big time in Tin Pan Alley, Big Bands, and Broadway from the 1920s through 1940s hadn’t yet been pushed aside.  The American public still recognized and appreciated works from Irving Berlin, Jerome Kern, Richard Rogers, the Gershwin brothers, Moss Hart, George Kaufman, Lerner and Loewe, Dorothy Field, Benny Goodman, Artie Shaw, etc.  Milton Berle, George Burns, and Jack Benny lived in American’s living rooms during the 1950s, courtesy of their eponymous TV shows.  While none of these entertainers inserted any Jewish doctrine or explicit Jewish references into their work, their Jewishness permeated who they were and what they did — and Americans still loved them.

Pop culture comes and goes, and I certainly don’t mind — indeed, I think it’s a good thing — that other cultures are getting their moment in the pop culture sun. What I do mind, dreadfully, is how hostile so much of the world is now to things Jewish. Rachel Corrie is a martyr, anti-Semitism is popping up all over, churches boycott Israel, and the New York Times pretends that it was mere coincidence that, back in 2008, the lone Jewish enclave in Mumbai was singled out for an attack that surpassed all the others in sheer brutality.  I miss the time when the Jews were a beloved people, and their culture a thing to be enjoyed and admired.

I’ve now dragged you, higgledy-piggledy, through sixty years of Jewish and Israeli history, as it intersected with American history.  I’ve shown that, pockets of American antisemitism notwithstanding, for most of those sixty years Americans appreciated their Jews, and admired the State of Israel.  More than that, they understood Israel’s role in world geopolitics, seeing it as a proxy for the ugly war the Soviet Bloc was waging against America itself.

Things are completely different now.  Around the world, antisemitism is becoming more blatant and more violent.  Anti-Israel sentiment, which I believe to be an extension of antisemitism, has become de riguer, both abroad and, sadly, somewhat at home.  Our President, whether he is a Muslim or just a sociopath who sympathizes with Islamic goals, has given Israel the cold shoulder and slobbered his way to the feet of every totalitarian Muslim dictator he can find.  Israel has become a pariah nation.

What I find so interesting is that Israel has not changed in the last 60 years.  She is still a small, representative democracy surrounded by dozens of nations that are highly repressive theocratic dictatorships.  Unlike the surrounding nations, she gives equal rights to people of different faiths, colors, creeds, and sexual orientation. (The surrounding nations, in stark contrast, kill and expel people of different faiths, colors, creeds, and sexual orientation, all the while maintaining a brutal war for dominance against the women in the midst.) Israel’s values, in other words, are completely synchronous with those ostensibly espoused by the Western nations that now,  not only despise Israel, but that ally themselves with Islamic dictatorships that practice values completely antithetical to what were, until a few years ago, normative in the West.

Israel also still lives poised on the thin edge of destruction at the hands of those hundreds of millions of citizens who reside in those totalitarian Muslim nations.  She is still the vanguard in a war that both she and the West fight.  Where the enemy was once “Godless Communism,” it’s now Islamic Jihadism, but both enemies have the same goal:  the total destruction of the West and of countries with Western values, and the absorption of those Western nations into political systems that deny individual freedom and that relentlessly destroy their own citizens (in vast numbers) in order to achieve state dominance.

What’s changed, obviously, is the West.  Even though we ostensibly won the Cold War, insofar as we witnessed the collapse of the Soviet Bloc, it’s manifest that we also lost the Cold War, in that we lost our self-identity and internalized the values of the Soviet Bloc itself.  As I pointed out above, there is absolutely nothing to distinguish the speech made by the Soviet’s UN ambassador in 1967 from the standard political talk against Israel that routinely emanates today in Europe and (sadly) in America’s Democratic party.

The Left’s war on the West continues unabated and, as it did in 1967, the Left has allied itself with the Islamic jihadists.  What’s different now, is that there are no longer geographic lines, with a nice Iron Curtain neatly delineating the descendants of the Judeo-Christian enlightenment from Marx’s heirs.  Like a fungus, the latter have disseminated themselves through all western societies and are working vigorously on bringing them down.  As was the case in the 1930s, in 1948, in 1956, in 1967, and in 1973, Israel and the Jews are the front line in the battle, only now they fight alone.

Given that our President has clearly put himself on the wrong side of this war, it is imperative that “We, the people” take up moral arms on Israel’s behalf.  We don’t have to board the next plane and enlist in the IDF (although I know many who did in 1973), but we must put political pressure on everyone we know to force America back into the Israeli camp.  Doing so is not some sentimental act on behalf of a nation America once liked and admired.  As the Life editors recognized back in 1967, it is an absolutely necessary step if America wishes to defend herself against statist and theocratic forces that have allied with an eye to America’s ultimate destruction.

UPDATE:  Proving that I am not writing in a vacuum, two things came to my attention just today that emphasize the unholy linkage between the Left and Islam, on the one hand, and Israel and America, on the other hand.  That linkage has always been there, but now it’s not a fringe; it’s part of the dominant culture.  Very scary.  Anyway, the first is a Zombie article about a strike at the Oakland docks that sees Longshoremen, Communists and Islamists joining hands to protest a perfectly innocuous Israeli ship.  The second is Andy McCarthy’s short post commenting on the collusion between the Left and Islam, a running theme in his new book The Grand Jihad: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America.

Quick hits on a sunny Friday afternoon *UPDATED*

It’s the first day of summer for my kids, so I’ve been in mommy mode all day (expect when I was in martial arts mode, which was, frankly, more fun).  Things cross my radar, though, and there are three things that came my way that I wanted to put onto your radar.  In no particular order:

An homage to Medal of Honor winner Robert L. Howard, who died with no fanfare last year, but was an American warrior, first, last and always.

A few days ago, I did a silly little post called “man caused disaster,” in which I intimated that we, the American voters (not all of us, but a majority), created a “man caused disaster” in the form of . . . well, check it out here.  Mike, a fellow Watcher’s Council member who blogs at The Provocateur, liked what I did, but thought I stopped too soon.  He therefore ran with the idea (which is, as you know, one of the great things about the blogging community), and came up with this.

Lastly, Bob Etheridge, who looks like Lurch after a bad, boozy night, has suddenly gone from being the clear favorite to being the “hanging in there by his fingertips” candidate.  What’s really great about all this is that his opponent, a Tea Party nurse named Renee Ellmers is worthy on her own terms to go to the House.  She just needed a little traction, and Etheridge’s assault gave her the media presence she needed.  You can read an interview with her here, at Right Wing News.

I just want to say one other thing, which sounds shallow and frivolous, but can also be scary or uplifting, depending on how you view it:  In our modern age, things change with incredible speed.  There.  I’ve said it.  It’s obvious, but it’s also important.

As I mentioned the other day, while I was reviewing my old blog posts it became clear to me that the extremism that is Climate Change, a hysterical approach to our climate that managed to move apocalyptic climate fears from the fringe to the center, was only coming into being in 2006.  Climate Change concerns existed before, but they didn’t dominate political and social discourse.

By the beginning of 2009, a mere three years later, every Leftist government in the world (including Obama’s) was using Climate Change hysteria to force vast economic changes on the world, and the masses were in a panic of Armageddon-like proportions.  By the end of 2009, however, that house of cards was collapsing, destroyed by truth and a bad economy.  It was a short, intensive, painful run, but it seems to be over.

The same holds true for anti-Israel animus (or at least I hope so).  The open letter from Spain’s former prime minister warning the world against abandoning Israel reflects the mindset of a leader who left office only six years ago.  In 2006, despite gross media malfeasance, the American public supported Israel during the Hezbollah war.  Up until January 19, 2009, America had a fiercely pro-Israel president.

In other words, the dramatic and active hostility towards Israel (as opposed to the passive disdain that’s been building on the Left for years), is a fairly recent phenomenon, and that’s despite the fact that it seems, at an emotional level, to have been around forever.  If Israel is unlucky, much badness will happen to her in the near future.  However, if she is lucky, this cycle will collapse as quickly as the Climate Change hysteria faded away.  People have short memories and, if something happens to slow or, better, destroy the momentum of a false ideology, that’s the end of it.

UPDATE:  Here’s a perfect example of an April 2007 post in which I note, as a new phenomenon, the rising Climate Change hysteria.

The former Spanish prime minister reminds us that the past had different standards

It tells you how quickly the world is moving that José María Aznar was prime minister in Spain as recently as 2004.  It’s impossible today to imagine any current world leader, including our own President, writing this about Israel.

I’ve posted Aznar’s message on both of my facebook sites, emailed it to all my friends, and am publishing it here.  I urge you to broadcast it to as many people as possible too.  What he says is very important.  Also, to the extent he’s proposing the creation of a Friends of Israel initiative, we should keep our eyes open.

Change happens quickly.  As I go through my old posts (I’m trying to consolidate them in one place with an eye towards publication), I was surprised to learn that the whole man-made global warming hypothesis was still gathering steam in the popular consciousness as late as 2006.  Somehow I thought that Al Gore’s drum beating had effectively robbed the world of common sense long before that.

Probing questions for the useful idiots aboard the Hamas Flotilla — by guest blogger Lulu

  1. Are you aware that Iran was caught smuggling weapons into Gaza?
  2. Do you think Israelis have any legitimate reason to be concerned that Hamas may try to receive weapons via boat?
  3. Did you know that Hamas activists have shot about 4000 rockets into southern Israel since Israel withdrew form Gaza?
  4. Does that trouble you?
  5. Do you think it is possible that weapons might have been aboard your ship?
  6. Here are pictures of an Israeli soldiers being beaten with metal poles, another held behind a door by armed guards, and another lying in a pool of his own blood. How do you reconcile this with the concept of peace advocacy?
  7. There has been much news made of Helen Thomas’ statement essentially stating that she believes Israel should be ethnically cleansed of Jews. Do you share that sentiment?
  8. Do you think Israel has a legitimate right to exist? What about Australia? New Zealand? Canada? The United States? Jordan? Pakistan?
  9. Is there a reason you don’t object to living in the United States when you are not a Native American?
  10. If Israelis are killed by weapons brought into Gaza because you succeed in ending the blockade would you feel morally responsible?
  11. What is your opinion of suicide bombings?
  12. As a peace activist would you be willing to advocate for the release of Gilad Shalit who has been totally denied his human rights for the past 4 years, denied any contact with the Red
  13. Cross or anyone else, and held in unknown conditions by Hamas?
  14. Would you be willing to visit Israel and hear their side of the story?
  15. Are you aware that Hamas’ charter calls for the mass murder of Israelis and Jews?
  16. How do you explain your support of this murderous regime while still claiming to be for peace?
  17. If Israel were ethnically cleansed where do you propose the Israelis should go?
  18. Where do you suggest Jews with ancestry from Arab lands that do not accept Jewish residents should go?
  19. What about those Israelis whose families have lived in Jerusalem and elsewhere in the land of Israel for thousands of years?
  20. Do you like Jews?

(Bookworm here: What do you think the odds are that any news journal will ask the useful idiots these questions?)

“You can’t go home again”

In my post about Helen Thomas, I focused on her incredible stupidity in saying that Jews are the interlopers and “Palestinians” the indigenous people.  In fact, the opposite is true.  Jews have lived in Israel non-stop since about 1800 B.C.  The “Palestinians” — a name I put in scare quotes because there really aren’t such people, there are just Arabs — are the recent arrivals.  The old ones arrived about 2000 years after the Jews.  The new ones arrived within the last Century.

Oh, and as Closet Conservative points out, Helen’s ignorance isn’t just about far history, but also about near history, because there’s no home to go back to.

The great Tony Snow and the awful Helen Thomas

The following, from 2006, is a perfect video.  First, it shows what a horrible person Helen Thomas has always been.  Second, it highlights the Bush White House attitudes towards Israel as well as the late, great Tony Snow’s intelligence, wit and charm.  That’s as good a contrast as you can get to the anti-Israel White House and the crude, condescending buffoonery of Press Secretary Robert Gibbs:

(The sound quality is poor, so you can find a transcript here.)

In light of Helen’s latest pro-Hezbollah and Hamas rantings, American journalists are backing off a little bit.   Their nostalgia for her “greatness,” though, indicates that they’re much less sorry for what she did than for the fact that she got caught.  After all, acceptable antisemitism emanating from both the Left and the most extreme Right is pretty much de rigueur for the journalistic class.

Ugly is as ugly does

Helen Thomas is a staggeringly ugly woman — not outside, where it’s obvious, but inside, something that explodes outward in a cloud of venomous verbal pus every time she opens her mouth:

By the way, Helen, the Palestinians are the occupiers.  Jews have been in the land, without cessation, since around 2000 B.C.E.  Let’s get those Muslim/Arab occupiers, who started filtering in after the 7th Century, B.C., out of their and send them back to the Arabian Peninsula where they belong.

With friends like these, who needs enemies?

Yesterday, White House officials were telling Jake Tapper that Obama would support Israel.  Any minute moments of hope I cherished that the administration actually meant what it said were swiftly dashed.  This is Obama’s version of support:

The Obama administration considers Israel’s blockade of Gaza to be untenable and plans to press for another approach to ensure Israel’s security while allowing more supplies into the impoverished Palestinian area, senior American officials said Wednesday.

The officials say that Israel’s deadly attack on a flotilla trying to break the siege and the resulting international condemnation create a new opportunity to push for increased engagement with the Palestinian Authority and a less harsh policy toward Gaza.

As is this:

President Barack Obama said Thursday that the deadly Israeli raid on an aid flotilla bound for the Gaza Strip was “tragic”, but he stopped short of condemning the actions of Israeli forces.

While Obama said the deaths of nine people were unnecessary, he said the U.S. wants to wait for “an investigation of international standards” to determine the facts. Israel, he said, should agree to such an investigation.

“They recognize that this can’t be good for Israel’s long-term security,” Obama said in an interview with CNN’s Larry King airing Thursday night.

Just so you know, even though the Obama administration seems to have misunderstood the facts on the ground, there is a good reason for the blockade:

Hezbollah in Lebanon, which shares a land border with Syria and is not under blockade, has a gigantic arsenal of rockets and missiles, more than most governments in the Middle East, and that arsenal includes missiles that can reach every single inch of Israeli territory, including Jerusalem, downtown Tel Aviv, Ben-Gurion International Airport, and the Dimona nuclear power plant. The next war between Israel and Hezbollah will likely mean missiles, artillery shells, and payloads from air strikes will explode all over the Eastern Mediterranean, making last year’s small war in Gaza look even smaller.

Hamas has a relatively tiny arsenal of crude rockets, but if the Gaza Strip were not under military blockade, it could acquire whatever weapons Syria and Iran felt like sending by ship. Gaza could bristle with as many destructive projectiles as Hezbollah has. Food and medicines are allowed into the Strip already, so the most significant difference between Gaza now and a Gaza without a blockade will be the importation of weapons and war material.

More Israelis would be likely to die during the ensuing hostilities, and an even larger number of Palestinians would be likely to die when Israel fights back harder against a better armed and more dangerous adversary.

And again, let me remind everyone (although I know Obama isn’t listening to little ol’ me), the blockade blocks weapons, not anything else.

Having now gotten a glimpse at Obama’s “support,” I have to ask:  What the Hell does life look like if you’re on Obama’s enemies list, rather than receiving his “support”?  Does he come in the night and flay you alive while robotically reciting his boring, pompous meaningless speeches?  I’m no longer pretending that Obama is inept, or misguided, or stupid, although I think he is all those things.  I’m convinced he is evil, as only a true antisemite can be.

It’s a sad day when the only person in a presidential administration making any sense and showing any signs of human decency is Joe Biden, who really stepped up and said the right thing this time:

“I think Israel has an absolute right to deal with its security interest. I put all this back on two things: one, Hamas, and, two, Israel’s need to be more generous relative to the Palestinian people who are in trouble in Gaza,” Biden said, according to a transcript of the interview, in which he went on to discuss Hamas’s control of Gaza:

“[The Israelis have] said, ‘Here you go. You’re in the Mediterranean. This ship–if you divert slightly north you can unload it and we’ll get the stuff into Gaza.’ So what’s the big deal here? What’s the big deal of insisting it go straight to Gaza? Well, it’s legitimate for Israel to say, ‘I don’t know what’s on that ship. These guys are dropping eight–3,000 rockets on my people,’ ” Biden said.

Kudos to Biden.  He’s not right often, but when he’s right, he lands it square in the middle of the target.

To clear your brain from the miasma that is Obama-think, please read Michael Oren’s op-ed, which the New York Times at least had the decency to publish.

The soft life in America has sucked the brains out of American Jews *UPDATED*

American Jews supported Barack Obama in numbers second only to American Blacks.  They still support Obama.  This is because the soft life in America has sucked out their brains.  How else can one explain that they continue to support him despite things like this:

Washington’s unprecedented backing for a UN resolution for a nuclear-free Middle East that singles out Israel has both angered and deeply worried the Jewish state although officials are cagey about openly criticising their biggest ally.

The resolution adopted by the United Nations on Friday calls on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and urges it to open its facilities to inspection.

It also calls for a regional conference in 2012 to advance the goal of a nuclear-free Middle East.

Israel is widely believed to be the only nuclear power in the Middle East, with around 200 warheads, but has maintained a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its capabilities since the mid-1960s.

The document, which singles out Israel but makes no mention of Iran’s controversial nuclear programme, drew a furious reaction from the Jewish state who decried it as “deeply flawed and hypocritical.”

But it was US backing for the resolution which has caused the most consternation among Israeli officials and commentators, who interpreted the move as “a resounding slap around the face” which has dealt a very public blow to Israel’s long-accepted policy of nuclear ambiguity.

Publicly, the Israel government has not criticised the US position but privately, officials expressed deep disappointment over the resolution, which Washington backed despite intensive Israeli efforts to block it.

According to the top-selling Yediot Aharonot daily, the government of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was “furious with the Obama administration for having failed to prevent the resolution from passing… and for choosing to support it.”

Read the rest here.  I knew this was coming down the pike, but I’m still shocked to see it actually happening.  One wants to shake these foolish, ostensibly sophisticated American Jews and say, “Enough with your misplaced intellectual arrogance.  Bush may have said ‘nuculer,’ but Obama says ‘corpse-man’ — and, worse, much worse, he will destroy Israel despite the fake sophistication you keep pinning on a man with an empty brain and a Marxist, antisemitic heart.”

I continue to believe that Obama will be a one term president, but I’m hoping one term is short enough to keep him from destroying the Jewish nation.

UPDATE:  I guess Jews like this answer my rhetorical question about Jews’ willingness to support the American president who is trying to destroy Israel.

Wednesday morning stuff *UPDATED*

A few things have crossed my radar this morning that I hope you’ll find as interesting as I did:

Is Michelle Obama depressed?  One of my friends thinks she is.  That is, she thinks Michelle has moved beyond anger and arrogance and landed in sheer misery.  She sent this link along as an example of Michelle’s current lack of happy fizz.  My friend may be right.  Michelle Obama, who has presented herself over the years as an angry person who feels that, both personally and by race, she’s always had the short end of the stick, probably believed that, when she got to the White House, she would suddenly be fulfilled and happy.  However, wherever you go, there you are.  Whether living in Chicago or the White House, Michelle is still Michelle — and she’s a person who has made a lifestyle out of angry grievance.  She doesn’t know from happy, and she’s probably more unhappy than ever now that she’s discovered that the White House isn’t a cure all for the anger that ails her.

As you know, I’ve been opposed from the beginning to inquiries into Elena Kagan’s private life.  Whether she is lesbian is irrelevant to her politics, which are defined by her liberalism, not her sexuality.  Michael Kinsley, however, has gone the other way.  He thinks that we ought to start savaging other justices private lives.  His first target:  Antonin Scalia, who has nine children:  “Why does Justice Antonin Scalia, by common consent the leading intellectual force on the Court, have nine children? Is this normal? Or should I say ‘normal,’ as some people choose to define it? Can he represent the views of ordinary Americans when he practices such a minority lifestyle? After all, having nine children is far more unusual in this country than, say, being a lesbian.”  If I was in the same room as Kinsley, this is what I would say:  “It’s true that so many children isn’t the norm, but having children is the norm, both biologically and culturally.  And fortunately we’re still enough of a freedom loving country that we allow people to figure out how many of the norm they want in their lives.”  (H/t:  The Anchoress)

In my post the other day about liberal illogic, I noted the illogic that has American blacks hostile to the police, even though blacks are most likely to be the victims of black-on-black crime.  I acknowledged that blacks in the past had good reason to fear the police, who did harass, assault, arrest and even kill them as form of sport.  But I said, the past is past.  Well, it turns out that, for American blacks, the past is not the past, because the liberal media is a well-spring of misinformation.  The media makes much of the fact that police target minorities more, without stating (a) that minorities commit more crimes and (b) that minorities are actually understopped relative to the amount of crime they commit.  Here’s the cause and effect question for you:  If minorities were targeted proportionate to the amount of crime they commit, might they be deterred from committing more crime?  And as you think about that question, do keep in mind that minority criminals commit the majority of their acts against their fellow minorities.

Peter Beinart says that, if we really love Israel, we should beat up on her more.  To which I say:  wife-beaters.  There comes a point where “I love her” is a justification for abuse, not a declaration of true feelings.  Beinart’s attitude would be more palatable, of course, if people loved the Palestinians, Saudis, Iranians, Egyptians, etc., enough to criticize them constantly too.  But they don’t.  It’s only Israel who comes in for this violent, destructive, sometimes deadly “love.”

UPDATEDavid Solway on the scary cipher in the White House.

The Mexican President, whose country is home to some of the most restrictive immigration laws in the world, blasts Arizona from trying to enforce America’s much laxer federal immigration laws.  I know why he’s upset.  If America really tightens her borders, Mexico will have to clean its own house.  It will no longer have a safety valve for the unemployed and the criminal, nor will it have the billions of dollars these “immigrants” (none of whom are committed to America) routinely send to float the Mexican economy.  Obama should have slapped him where he stood.  Instead, he essentially supported Calderon’s swipe at our national sovereignty.  Barack Obama, you are a very bad man; a very bad man (see at 1:08; 1:20; 2:17; 3:35)

UPDATE IIA blast from the past.  I don’t know why, but I’ve always found it cool to peer backwards through time and really look at the people.  They are so like us — as the reconstructed image shows — and yet so very, very different in their world view.

UPDATE III:  Obama, no matter how careful he is, exposes his incoherence and bias.

Comedy Central allies itself with Palestinian Television

At HonestReporting.com there is a story I thought was a prank, but isn’t.  It turns out that the same network that collapsed utterly at there mere specter of Palestinian outrage over a South Park cartoon suggesting that freedom of speech trumps Islam, is running an online computer game that would fit on the official Palestinian Authority website:

Currently appearing on Comedy Central’s website is a game called “I.S.R.A.E.L. Attack!”. The premise of this game has nothing to do with Israel and, as such, is nothing more than an insidious attempt at association. The game’s introduction begins with a character who states:

You lied to me, Jew Producer

referring to a character who has failed to carry out a mission to destroy other child-like cartoon characters. If this piece of anti-Semitism isn’t bad enough, a robot – the Intelligent Smart Robot Animation Eraser Lady – is sent to do the job that the Jew Producer failed to achieve.

The character openly calls the robot by its acronym – ISRAEL – and the association created by those behind this game is unmistakable – Israel the child killer.

The game then involves the robot destroying everything and everyone in its path, including children and animals.

As I said, I actually thought when I read the above that it was a hoax, so I clicked on the Comedy Central link — and discovered, to my horror, that’s the real deal.

HonestReporting has set up a facebook page to inform the public about this truly antisemitic outrage from a network that wet its pants over fear of angry Muslims. I urge you to join this facebook page.

Comedy Central is of course, right about one thing:  Unlike angry Muslims, Americans, and Jewish Americans, aren’t going to gut and fillet any Comedy Central employees over this type of garbage.  But we do have another effective response, which is an economic boycott.  I already wrote Comedy Central and told them that they are networka non grata on my television set.  And unless something changes quickly, I’ll start contacting their advertisers, too.

Hat tip:  American Thinker

Jones missed the joke’s real punchline *UPDATED*

If you’ve been paying any attention at all to today’s news, you’ve already heard about the fact that Obama’s National Security Advisor Gen. James Jones told a “joke” that is premised on two Jewish merchants taking advantage of a dangerously dehydrated Talibani:

I’d like to begin with a story that I think is true, a Taliban militant gets lost and is wandering around the desert looking for water. He finally arrives at a store run by a Jew and asks for water. The Jewish vendor tells him he doesn’t have any water but can gladly sell him a tie. The Taliban, the jokes goes on, begins to curse and yell at the Jewish storeowner. The Jew, unmoved, offers the rude militant an idea: Beyond the hill, there is a restaurant; they can sell you water. The Taliban keeps cursing and finally leaves toward the hill. An hour later he’s back at the tie store. He walks in and tells the merchant: “Your brother tells me I need a tie to get into the restaurant.”

Oh, those clever, greedy Jews!

Had Jones been possessed of a long history of philosemitism, the joke might have been less offensive.  After all, we all acknowledge that, within a community, people are allowed to rough each other up a little with jokes.  (The ultimate example of this, of course, is the fact that African Americans are comfortable calling each other the “n” word, a word completely unacceptable from anyone outside of the African American community.)

Jones, however, is not a philosemite.  As Yid With Lid reports, “It was Jones who put together the team of Brent Scowcroft and Zbigniew Brzezinski to meet with the President and advise him to impose a solution on Israel.”  This was not the loving joke of an insider but was, instead, a mean-spirited ad lib.

But here’s the really funny thing, showing that the joke is on Jones himself.  Not only is that little story visibly hostile to Jews, something that doesn’t reflect well on Jones, it also shows that he’s woefully uninformed about Islam, something that’s a little scary for a National Security Advisor.  You see — Muslims won’t wear ties, probably even if they’re thirsty.

Bottom line:  If you’re going to tell a racist joke, get your facts right.

UPDATE:  There is a lot of debate in email threads to which I belong about whether the joke was indeed antisemitic.  My take continues to be that the person who told the joke matters.  If Jones had the warm cuddlies to Jews, I’d laugh; as it is, I doubt his motives, which makes it harder to laugh.  The Anchoress, however, looks at the joke itself, and has a very different and interesting take on the whole thing.

UPDATEDJones has apologized.  He was right to do so.  Even if not antisemitic, the person telling the joke, the timing and the venue mean it was pretty much the equivalent of a girlie j0ke told to a group of grandmothers.  Just out of place.

Israel and the liberal noise machine *UPDATED*

I had another fascinating conversation with a liberal who offered this take on the situation with Israel:

Because everyone hates Israel, it’s a brilliant strategy for Obama to attack it to raise his standing in the world.  Israel wants this too.  I bet you $100 that we’ll learn that this whole ‘fight” was carefully scripted to improve Obama’s and Israel’s standing.

And no, I’m not exaggerating.  It’s not quite verbatim, because I didn’t take notes during the conversation, but it’s close.

I think Barry Rubin and Bruce Kesler offer slightly more sophisticated analyses of what’s going on.  First, with regard to my liberal friend’s world view, here’s Barry Rubin analyzing the New York Times’ approach to Israel and the Middle East.

And now to what the U.S. is doing.  Barry Rubin suggests that the U.S. has declared diplomatic war against Israel.  So no, this isn’t some diplomatic theater in which Israel allows herself to be beaten black and blue in order to placate her and America’s common enemy.  Instead, America, through the Obama administration, is becoming one of Israel’s enemies.  And Bruce Kesler suggests a “secret plan” (not so secret, as more and more people are thinking it), that sees America forcing Israel to bomb Iran — at which point you can be sure that B. Hussein O. will abandon Israel to the world’s wolves, thereby, in one fell swoop, having rid himself of two problems.  Nobody ever said Machiavelli was principled.

UPDATE:  Jennifer Rubin, with some help from William Kristol, has the perfect response to the fatuity emanating from the liberal (and often Jewish) Left:

As Bill Kristol explains, the Obami’s anti-Israel bent is no accident but part of his larger approach, which seeks realignment in Middle East policy as Obama becomes not the leader of a single nation or even of the alliance of democracies but the wise mediator for all humanity:

And there’s no better way to be a leader of humanity than to show disapproval of the Jewish state. Sure, Obama’s turn against Israel will make it less likely that Palestinians will negotiate seriously with her. Sure, it will embolden radical Arabs and Muslims against those who would like their nations to take a different, more responsible, course. Sure, it’s a distraction from the real challenge of Iran. But the turn against Israel is ultimately a key part of what Obamaism is all about. That’s why there’s been so little attempt by the administration to reassure friends of Israel that Obama has been acting more in sorrow than in anger. Obama’s proud of his anger at the stiff-necked Jewish state. It puts him in sync with the rest of the world.

In this, we see the intersection of Obama’s multilateralism, his aversion to American exceptionalism, his fetish with his own international popularity, his obsession with engaging despots, his disinterest in promoting human rights, and his hostility toward the Jewish state. They are interlocking pieces in the greater Obama vision — each reenforces the other and makes more precarious the security of not only Israel but also the United States. Obama may suppose he is making America more popular or reducing conflict with rogue states, but instead, he is fueling the ambitions of aggressive despots and frittering away America’s moral standing. We are abetting an international free-for-all as the world’s bullies look for openings to assert themselves and to show just how dangerous it is to be a small democratic ally of the U.S.

Israeli comics launch savage (and deserved) attack against Swedes

Thanks to Lulu for bringing this brilliant comic video to my attention: